Depletion or expansion? Understanding the effects of support policy use on employee work and family outcomes

• Published date: 01 April 2018
• Author: Andrew Li,Adam Butler,Jessica Bagger
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12174
• Date: 01 April 2018

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Depletion or expansion? Understanding the effects

of support policy use on employee work and family

outcomes

Andrew Li

1

|Adam Butler

2

|Jessica Bagger

3

1

Department of Management, College of

Business, West Texas A&M University,

Canyon, TX, USA

2

Department of Psychology, University of

Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA

3

Department of Management, College of

Business Administration, California State

University, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, USA

Correspondence

Andrew Li, Department of Management,

College of Business, West Texas A&M

University, Canyon, TX 79015, USA.

Email: ali@wtamu.edu

Abstract

Past research on the effects of employees' use of work–family sup-

port policies tends to draw on a depletion perspective suggesting

that using these policies may reduce work–family conflict. The

emphasis on depletion fails to consider the expansion perspective

that assumes that using work resources may enrich family function-

ing. Using a sample of 113 matched employee–supervisor pairs and

a1‐month separation between predictor and criterion measure-

ment, we found support for the expansion rather than the depletion

perspective. Specifically, the relationships between support policy

use and employee job satisfaction and family efficacy (but not

organisational citizenship behaviour) were mediated by work‐

to‐family enrichment; these effects were realised only for

employees with high levels of family identity. In contrast, no support

was found for family‐to‐work conflict as a mediator of the model.

KEYWORDS

family identity, work–family conflict,work–family enrichment,

work–family support policies

1|INTRODUCTION

In response to significant demographic changes in the workforce, including increases in the number of working

mothers, “sandwiched”employees who have both childcare and eldercare responsibilities, and employees living in

non‐traditional household arrangements, organisations have begun to offer work–family support policies (referred

to henceforth as “support policies”for short) to their employees (Powell, 2010). These support policies,which include

programmes such as family health insurance, on‐site childcare, and leavefor family matters, are designed to offer tangible sup-

port in the form of time, services, or financial benefits (Butts, Casper, & Yang, 2013). A recent report from the Families and

Work Institute suggests that the availability of many work–family support programmes has been increasing since 2008

(Matos, Galinsky, & Bond, 2016). Such programmes are offered not only in Western countries but also in developing countries.

Although broadly classified as family‐friendly policies, support policies differ from flexibility policies such as

telecommuting and flextime (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, 2013; Bailey & Kurland, 2002) in that they more

Received: 19 August 2016 Revised: 11 August 2017 Accepted: 24 August 2017

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12174

216 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Hum Resour Manag J. 2018;28:216–234.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

directly help employees care for family members. Moreover, the outcomes associated with support policies appear

weaker and more varied in comparison to those associated with flexibility policies (Butts et al., 2013). Whereas some

studies have linked the utilisation of these policies to positive employee and business outcomes such as lower levels

of employee stress, less conflict between work and family, reduced absences, and higher productivity (e.g., Cook,

2009; Konrad & Mangel, 2000; Lambert, Steinke, & Harris, 2012), no such positive effects are observed in other stud-

ies (e.g., Brough & O'Driscoll, 2010; Kossek & Nichol, 1992; Lee & Hong, 2011). Although a recent meta‐analysis

reported a positive relationship between the use of support policies and employee attitudes, the effect sizes were

rather modest (Butts et al., 2013).

These mixed findings have led to calls for research to uncover not only whether but also under what circumstances

and how the use of these policies may result in positive outcomes for individuals and organisations (Beauregard &

Henry, 2009; Kelly et al., 2008). As such, the present study attempts to address several gaps existing in this literature.

First, research on the effects of support policies is primarily guided by a depletion perspective that assumes that the

use of these programmes will allow employees to provide better care for their family without the need to make work

sacrifices, resulting in less conflict between the work and family domains (Butts et al., 2013). This emphasis has failed

to consider the expansion perspective that suggests that using support policies allows employees to develop

resources at work that can be used to enrich the experience in the family domain (Rothausen, 2016). In the present

study, we incorporate both perspectives and examine two separate cross‐domain processes, namely, family‐to‐work

conflict (FWC) and work‐to‐family enrichment (WFE), that channel the effects of support policy use on important

employee outcomes. In so doing, we provide a more comprehensive account of how support policy use impacts

employees' work–family interface.

Second, Butts et al. (2013) observed a large amount of variance unaccounted for in their meta‐analysis,

suggesting potential moderation of the relationships between support policy use and employee outcomes. Empirical

efforts to uncover potential moderators of the effects of policy use tend to focus on employee demographics such as

gender and parental status (e.g., Butler, Gasser, & Smart, 2004; Casper & Harris, 2008). A limitation of this research is

that demographic variables offer a distal, rather than proximal (or psychological), explanation for why the effects of

policy use vary. Rothausen (2016) suggested that the identity framework provides a particularly compelling theoretical

tool that can help understand employees' use of support policies to manage the work–family interface. Drawing on

identity theory (Stryker, 1987; Stryker & Serpe, 1982), we include family identity as a moderator of the effects of

support policy use, arguing that this effect will be more pronounced when family identity is high.

Third, Rothausen (2016) suggested that research on support policy use should examine its effects on not only the

proximal outcomes such as work–family conflict but also the distal outcomes such as work and family variables.

Therefore, we examine the effects of support policy use on supervisor‐rated organisational citizenship behaviour

(OCB), employees' job satisfaction, and their family efficacy. By incorporating data from both the employee and the

supervisor and collecting the data in two time periods, we respond to the criticism that the work–family literature

in general (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007) and studies focusing on support policies in particular

(Kossek, 2005) have almost exclusively relied upon same‐source data with a cross‐sectional design.

1.1 |Work–family support policies

Although organisations offer both support policies and flexible arrangements, a majority of research has focused on

flexibility arrangements rather than support policies. To our knowledge, there have been at least three meta‐analyses

on the effects of flexible arrangements (Allen et al., 2013; Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Gajendran &

Harrison, 2007) whereas there has only been one on support policies (Butts et al., 2013). The effects associated with

support policies also vary across studies. Although some studies show that these policies have positive effects on

employees' attitudes and behaviour, others fail to demonstrate such positive effects. For example, Kossek and Nichol

(1992) found that in comparison to nonusers, users of organisational childcare benefits had more positive work

attitudes and perceived higher levels of attractiveness of these benefits, although no difference in performance or

LI ET AL.217