Work–life programmes and organisational outcomes: the role of the human resource system
Date | 08 November 2019 |
Pages | 516-536 |
Published date | 08 November 2019 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2018-0408 |
Author | Kohinur Akter,Muhammad Ali,Artemis Chang |
Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm |
Work–life 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 work–life 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 work–life 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 work–life programmes–performance 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 work–life programmes are positively associated with
all three measures of performance. The results partially support the moderating effect of HR systems on the
relationship between work–life programmes and perceived organisational performance.
Originality/value –This study provides pioneering evidence for the moderating effect of HR system on the
work–life programme–performance relationship. It also includes the rarely studied CSR as an outcome of
work–life programmes.
Keywords Quantitative, Corporate social responsibility, Financial performance, Human resource system,
Perceived organizational performance, Work–life programmes
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Work–life 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 work–life
programmes (Forsyth and Polzer-Debruyne, 2007; Pocock, 2005; Straub, 2012). Taking
these contributing factors into consideration, employers have implemented numerous
work–life 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 work–life programmes to reduce the cost of
business (Been et al., 2016; Beer et al., 2015; Burke, 2010; Naithani, 2010). As a result,
work–life 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 work–life 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 work–life 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 work–life 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 work–life 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 work–life programmes on social concerns
(Bardoel et al., 2008).
The inconclusive findings have encouraged researchers to test the contextual
moderating variables in the work–life programmes–performance relationship
( Johns, 2006). Some of the contextual moderating variables studied in the work–life
programmes–performance 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
work–life 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
work–life 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 work–life
programmes–performance relationship.
This study advances the field of work–life 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 work–life 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
work–life programmes–corporate social responsibility (CSR) relationship (Freeman, 1983).
Work–life programmes are surrounded by a social system where multiple stakeholders
interact internally and externally, and stakeholder aspects are potentially the outcome of
work–life programmes (Beer et al., 2015). At present, research is required to understand how
work–life programmes are adding value not only to the firm’s tangible and financial
outcome aspects but also to non-financial aspects that benefit multiple stakeholders (Beer
et al., 2015; Colakoglu et al., 2006). Stakeholders’connections with work–life programmes
are ignored in the broader HR research and there is a dearth of work–life
programmes–stakeholder 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 work–life
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 work–life programmes are increasingly significant to Australian individuals and
businesses (Pocock, 2005). Very few work–life programmes–organisational performance
relationship studies have been conducted in the Australian context (e.g. Ali et al., 2015). The
findings stimulate awareness of work–life issues among employers, unions and government
that might lead to a better life and work regime in Australia (Pocock, 2003).
517
Work–life
programmes and
organisational
outcomes
To continue reading
Request your trial