The Impact of Work–Family Programs on the Relationship between Gender Diversity and Performance

• Date: 01 July 2015
• Published date: 01 July 2015
• Author: Isabel Metz,Carol T. Kulik,Muhammad Ali
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21631

Human Resource Management, July–August 2015, Vol. 54, No. 4. Pp. 553–576

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21631

Correspondence to: Muhammad Ali, Queensland University of Technology, QUT Business School,

2GeorgeStreet, Brisbane, Queensland 4001, Australia, Phone: +61 7 3138 2661, Fax: +61 7 3138 1313,

E-mail: m3.ali@qut.edu.au.

THE IMPACT OF WORK–FAMILY

PROGRAMS ON THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER

DIVERSITY AND PERFORMANCE

MUHAMMAD ALI, ISABEL METZ,

AND CAROL T. KULIK

Work–family programs signal an employer’s perspective on gender diversity

to employees, and can infl uence whether the effects of diversity on perform-

ance are positive or negative. This article tests the interactive effects of non-

management gender diversity and work–family programs on productivity,

and management gender diversity and work–family programs on fi nancial

performance. The predictions were tested in 198 Australian publicly listed or-

ganizations using primary (survey) and secondary (publicly available) data

based on a two-year time lag between diversity and performance. The fi nd-

ings indicate that nonmanagement gender diversity leads to higher produc-

tivity in organizations with many work–family programs, and management

gender diversity leads to lower fi nancial performance in organizations with

few work–family programs. The results suggest different business cases at

nonmanagement and management levels for the adoption of work–family

programs in gender-diverse organizations. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: gender diversity, work–family programs, productivity, fi nancial

performance

Introduction

Women’s increasing partici-

pation in the workforce is

reflected in higher levels of

gender diversity at nonman-

agement and management

levels. For instance, women’s representation

in the Australian workforce increased from

41.4 percent in 1986 to 47.1 percent in 2010

at nonmanagement levels, and from 22.5 per-

cent in 1986 to 34 percent in 2010 at manage-

ment levels (Australian Bureau of Statistics,

2009, 2010). Similarly, women’s representa-

tion in the United States workforce increased

from 45 percent in 1983 to 48 percent in 2010

at nonmanagement levels, and from 32.4 per-

cent in 1983 to 42.6 percent in 2010 at man-

agement levels (Bureau of Labor Statistics,

1983, 2011). Women’s increased workforce

554 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULY–AUGUST 2015

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

As a result of the

costs involved

in offering WF

[work–family]

programs and the

discretionary nature

of these programs,

the number of WF

programs adopted

by an organization

sends a signal to

employees about the

employer’s views on

gender diversity.

Watson, Cooper, Torres, & Boyd, 2008),

positive effects (e.g., Frink etal., 2003; Herring,

2009; Richard, Ford, & Ismail, 2006; Wegge,

Roth, Kanfer, Neubach, & Schmidt, 2008),

or nonlinear effects (e.g., Ali, Kulik, & Metz,

2011; Richard, Barnett, Dwyer, & Chadwick,

2004) on processes and performance. Thus,

the current research investigates whether

effective gender diversity management in the

form of WF programs helps realize the bene-

fits of organizational gender diversity (McKay,

Avery, & Morris, 2009). As a result of the costs

involved in offering WF programs and the

discretionary nature of these programs, the

number of WF programs adopted by an orga-

nization sends a signal to employees about the

employer’s views on gender diversity (Celani

& Singh, 2011; Spence, 1973). This signal can

influence whether the effects of gender diver-

sity on performance are negative or positive.

We use the number of WF programs

offered (not the design, implementation,

access, or usage of those programs, or expe-

riences associated with the use of those pro-

grams) as a signal to employees for two main

reasons. First, the availability of WF programs

is a major determinant of employees’ percep-

tions of organizational support (T. D. Allen,

2001; Casper & Harris, 2008), often regard-

less of the usage of those programs (Grover

& Crooker, 1995). Organizations communi-

cate to employees the WF programs on offer

more often than the design, implementa-

tion, access, and usage of those programs.

The offering of WF programs symbolizes

how much the organization cares about its

employees (Casper & Harris, 2008) and thus

is a key signal to employees. Second, as the

current study is conducted in a large number

of organizations across multiple industries, it

aggregates data on WF programs to the orga-

nizational level. The design, implementation,

access, and usage of those WF programs can

vary across the WF programs offered, and

across occupations and units/departments

(WorldatWork, 2005). Employees’ experiences

of WF programs also vary across individu-

als (Eaton, 2003; Kossek, 2005). Therefore,

it would not be appropriate to make direct

comparisons across organizations using data

on the design, implementation, access, usage,

participation has changed the traditional fam-

ily roles of men and women (Powell, 2011). A

very high percentage of employees from both

genders (about 90 percent) are now trying

to manage the dual responsibilities of work

and family (Burke, 2007; Lockwood, 2003).

Therefore, organizations with high gender

diversity might be motivated to offer more

work–family (WF) programs. However, the

literatures on workforce diversity and WF pro-

grams have largely developed independently

of one another, and little is known about how

a match or mismatch between gender diver-

sity and WF programs impacts

organizational effectiveness.

An investigation into the inter-

action between gender diversity

and WF programs is important for

multiple reasons. First, the find-

ings may help advance the busi-

ness case for high gender diversity

and many WF programs. WF

programs are expensive to devise

and implement. The high finan-

cial costs involved in offering WF

programs prevent organizations

from adopting them (Families and

Work Institute, 2008). As a result,

it is important for organizations

to understand the business case

for WF programs. Moreover, most

WF programs are not mandated

by equal opportunity laws and,

therefore, many employers offer

a minimum number of WF pro-

grams in the absence of a business

case (Strachan, French, & Burgess,

2010). Among Australian small

and medium-sized enterprises, 73

percent of organizations offer flextime, which

many employees expect, but only 5 percent

of organizations offer a subsidy for child care

(Australian Government Office for Women,

2007).

Second, the results can help reconcile the

inconsistent findings of past gender diversity

research (for reviews, see McMahon, 2010;

Shore etal., 2009). Empirical research suggests

that diversity can have negative effects (e.g.,

Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Shapcott,

Carron, Burke, Bradshaw, & Estabrooks,2006;