Work–life programmes and organisational outcomes: the role of the human resource system

Date08 November 2019
Pages516-536
Published date08 November 2019
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2018-0408
AuthorKohinur Akter,Muhammad Ali,Artemis Chang
Subject MatterHr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm
Worklife programmes and
organisational outcomes: the role
of the human resource system
Kohinur Akter, Muhammad Ali and Artemis Chang
QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Purpose Empiricalfindings on the linkbetween worklife programmesand organisationalperformance have
been inconsistent,demanding further investigationof contextual factors. The paper aimsto discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach This study uses social exchange theory, strategic human resource (HR)
management theory and stakeholder theory to examine the relationship between worklife programmes and
organisational outcomes, using three performance measures: perceived organisational performance, financial
performance and corporate social responsibility (CSR). It also investigates the moderating effect of HR
systems on the worklife programmesperformance relationship. The hypotheses were tested in 192
organisations in Australia, using data from an HR manager survey and archival databases.
Findings The findings support the hypotheses that worklife programmes are positively associated with
all three measures of performance. The results partially support the moderating effect of HR systems on the
relationship between worklife programmes and perceived organisational performance.
Originality/value This study provides pioneering evidence for the moderating effect of HR system on the
worklife programmeperformance relationship. It also includes the rarely studied CSR as an outcome of
worklife programmes.
Keywords Quantitative, Corporate social responsibility, Financial performance, Human resource system,
Perceived organizational performance, Worklife programmes
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Worklife programmes have been attracting attention from researchers, practitioners,
government, business leaders, employers, employees, community and the media for
the last few decades (Nord et al., 2002; Pocock and Pocock, 2001). Participation of
large numbers of women in the workplace, demographic changes, changes in
household patterns, long working hours (intensification of work), the rise of the service
sector, globalisation, immigration opportunities, transformation of society and a
shortage of qualified labour have contributed to the importance of worklife
programmes (Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne, 2007; Pocock, 2005; Straub, 2012). Taking
these contributing factors into consideration, employers have implemented numerous
worklife programmes (e.g. flexitime, childcare centres, job sharing, part-time
arrangements, maternity and other leave arrangements). Two recessions in the 2000s
have compelled organisations to curtail worklife programmes to reduce the cost of
business (Been et al., 2016; Beer et al., 2015; Burke, 2010; Naithani, 2010). As a result,
worklife programmes are being marginalised in the organisational system (Kelly et al .,
2008; Kossek et al., 2011). Stronger and more comprehensive research evidence might help
restore commitment to these programmes.
Based on various theoretical foundations, several studies have been conducted on the
relationship between worklife programmes and organisational performance, such as
productivity levels, financial performance, profits, shareholder returns, turnover and
retention (e.g. Ali et al., 2015; Avgar et al., 2011; Blazovich et al., 2013; Bloom et al., 2011;
Cegarra-Leiva et al., 2012; Clifton and Shepard, 2004; Dex et al., 2001; Konrad and Mangel,
2000; Kossek et al., 2011; Wood and de Menezes, 2010). However, many studies have found
inconsistent evidence of the impact of worklife programmes on firm performance
Personnel Review
Vol. 49 No. 2, 2020
pp. 516-536
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-10-2018-0408
Received 16 October 2018
Revised 16 June 2019
Accepted 9 July 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
516
PR
49,2
(Bloom et al., 2011; Sands and Harper, 2007; Yamamoto and Matsuura, 2014). Since the
outcomes of worklife programmes are mixed and inconclusive, a strong organisational
business case for these programmes has not yet been established. Though employers
find business cases very convincing and powerful (Kossek and Lambert, 2004), the
social case of worklife programmes is also noteworthy to practitioners, academics
and various stakeholders (Lewis et al., 2007). Despite this, however, there is a dearth
of research addressing the impact of worklife programmes on social concerns
(Bardoel et al., 2008).
The inconclusive findings have encouraged researchers to test the contextual
moderating variables in the worklife programmesperformance relationship
( Johns, 2006). Some of the contextual moderating variables studied in the worklife
programmesperformance relationship are: firm size, age and proportion of women
(Perry-Smith and Blum, 2000), proportion of female employees, presence of labour unions,
wage level and industry (Wood and de Menezes, 2010; Yanadori and Kato, 2009),
good management practices (Bloom et al., 2011) and high-performance work systems
(Lee and Kim, 2010). However, there is a lack of research investigating human resource
(HR)-related contextual variables (e.g. HR systems and business strategy) along with
worklife programmes and how these programmes affect various organisational
outcomes as well as multiple stakeholders (Beer et al., 2015). A prior systematic
literature review (Akter et al., 2016) and few other studies (Ollier-Malaterre, 2009;
Ollier-Malaterre and Foucreault, 2017) suggest that contextual factors combined with
worklife programmes might play an inevitable role in achieving sustainable HR (e.g. the
millennial workforce generation), as context works as a continual configuration of stimuli
that drives organisations ( Jabbour and Santos, 2008; Johns, 2006; Parakandi and Behery,
2016). This study tests these assumptions by including the HR system in the worklife
programmesperformance relationship.
This study advances the field of worklife programmes in four ways. First, it tests social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and strategic HR management (SHRM) theory (Wright, 2008).
Specifically, the paper predicts that worklife programmes are positively related to
perceived organisational performance and financial performance based on social exchange
theory and SHRM theory. Second, this study tests stakeholder theory through predicting a
worklife programmescorporate social responsibility (CSR) relationship (Freeman, 1983).
Worklife programmes are surrounded by a social system where multiple stakeholders
interact internally and externally, and stakeholder aspects are potentially the outcome of
worklife programmes (Beer et al., 2015). At present, research is required to understand how
worklife programmes are adding value not only to the firms tangible and financial
outcome aspects but also to non-financial aspects that benefit multiple stakeholders (Beer
et al., 2015; Colakoglu et al., 2006). Stakeholdersconnections with worklife programmes
are ignored in the broader HR research and there is a dearth of worklife
programmesstakeholder perspectives research at the organisational level (Colakoglu
et al., 2006; Jabbour and Santos, 2008).
Third, responding to the call to examine HR-related contextual variables, this study
extends contingency theory (Galbraith, 1995) to predict and explain how worklife
programmes and the HR system interact to add value for organisations. The study
contributes to aligning various elements of managing HR to generate synergistic
advantages (Galbraith, 2007). Fourth, this study is conducted in the Australian context,
since worklife programmes are increasingly significant to Australian individuals and
businesses (Pocock, 2005). Very few worklife programmesorganisational performance
relationship studies have been conducted in the Australian context (e.g. Ali et al., 2015). The
findings stimulate awareness of worklife issues among employers, unions and government
that might lead to a better life and work regime in Australia (Pocock, 2003).
517
Worklife
programmes and
organisational
outcomes

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT