Work–Life Program Participation and Employee Work Attitudes: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis Using Matching Methods

• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X18823250
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• Date: 01 September 2020
• Author: David Lee,Sun Young Kim
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18823250

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2020, Vol. 40(3) 468 –490

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X18823250

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Work–Life Program

Participation and Employee

Work Attitudes: A Quasi-

Experimental Analysis Using

Matching Methods

Sun Young Kim1 and David Lee2

Abstract

Work–life programs (WLPs) have been widely adopted and implemented by public

organizations as a means of providing employees with greater choices and flexibility

in coordinating their work and personal lives. Although previous research has

shown that these programs are positively related to various employee attitudes

and behaviors, empirical evidence about whether and how such relationships vary

by type of WLP is relatively scant. In this study, we categorize WLPs into two

different types—work-oriented and life-oriented programs—and explore whether

and how participating in distinct types of WLPs has varying impacts on employee

work attitudes. A series of Mahalanobis distance matching is conducted using data

from the 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. The results indicate that the

use of life-oriented programs has a positive and substantive impact on employee

satisfaction and commitment, while the effect of participating in work-oriented

programs is not statistically significant.

Keywords

work–life programs, job satisfaction, organizational satisfaction, affective commitment,

matching methods

1University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

2University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

Corresponding Author:

David Lee, Public Administration Program, College of Social Sciences, University of Hawai‘i at Ma¯noa,

2424 Maile Way, Saunders 631, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.

Email: lee211@hawaii.edu

823250ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X18823250Review of Public Personnel AdministrationKim and Lee

research-article2019

Kim and Lee 469

The U.S. labor force has witnessed dramatic changes in employee demographics over

the past few decades. Some of the most prominent changes include an increase in the

number of female workers in the workforce and a growth in the average age of employ-

ees. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, for instance, the proportion of

women in the workplace nearly doubled between 1950 and 2010 (Toossi & Morisi,

2017). Such trends have had a large impact on the public sector workforce, in part

pushing public organizations and managers to pay greater attention to how to deal with

the changing needs of diverse employees. Specifically, balancing work responsibilities

and personal lives has posed a major challenge to both public employees and employ-

ers (Bruce & Reed, 1994).

To enhance the balance between employees’ work and personal lives, many

organizations have begun to institute various policies and programs known as

work–life programs (WLPs). In particular, the U.S. federal government has played

an active role in developing and implementing WLPs. According to the U.S. Office

of Personnel Management (OPM, 2014), WLPs refer to a “business practice of

creating a flexible, supportive environment to engage employees and maximize

organizational performance.” These programs are distinguished from traditional

economic benefits, such as health insurance, pension, sick leave, and paid vacation,

by their aim of enabling employees to manage the diverse needs that originate from

work and nonwork domains (Roberts, Gianakis, McCue, & Wang, 2004). While

also commonly known as family-friendly policies, WLPs do not target any one

particular group of employees facing family-related issues but include a broad set

of benefits and policies offered to a wide range of employees. These programs

intend to enhance employees’ work motivation and productivity as well as personal

well-being by providing greater flexibility in both work and nonwork conditions.

Some of the most widely used WLPs include telework, alternative work schedules,

child care, and elder care programs.

Along with practitioners’ growing attention to WLPs, public management scholars

have examined how these programs are related to individual and organizational out-

comes. The effects of WLPs on job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational com-

mitment, turnover intention, actual turnover, and organizational performance have

been extensively studied in previous research (Bae & Kim, 2016; Caillier, 2013b; de

Vries, Tummers, & Bekkers, 2018; Durst, 1999; Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Facer &

Wadsworth, 2008; Feeney & Stritch, 2017; J. Kim & Wiggins, 2011; Ko & Hur, 2014;

S.-Y. Lee & Hong, 2011; Saltzstein, Ting, & Saltzstein, 2001). Still, empirical studies

investigating whether WLPs can be categorized into different types (particularly based

on the program’s primary orientation to work or nonwork realms) and whether they

have varying impacts on work outcomes are relatively scarce. Additional research

addressing these issues is needed to further bolster our theoretical and practical under-

standing of WLPs in the public sector.

Hoyman and Duer (2004) proposed the conceptual typology of workplace policies

by dividing a range of policies into four types based on several criteria, including the

purpose, focus, beneficiary, financial burden, and target group of each policy: (a) fam-

ily or personal benefits, (b) removal of barriers to work, (c) training and education, and