Family leave for employed women: Interaction effects of gender discrimination and household responsibilities in South Korea

Abstract

Family leave policies are among the approaches used by employers across the globe to ease work–family strains among employed women, and enhance employee engagement and productivity. Yet some research suggests a critical dilemma facing some women: taking advantage of family leave may improve their ability to maintain both job and family, while lessening their status as valued employees in the eyes of employers that discriminate. This study utilizes secondary data from a sample of 1630 employed women from the 2008 Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families to examine the moderating roles of perceived gender discrimination on the relationships between family leave provisions and work–family conflict; and the moderating role of housework responsibilities on the relationships between family leave provisions and work–family conflict of women employees. The results suggest that the availability of leave policies is more strongly associated with decreased work–family conflict for women employees who report less perceived gender discrimination at the workplace, and who have greater housework responsibilities.

Keywords

Employee stigma family leave gender discrimination household responsibilities work–family conflict

Introduction

Research indicates that many women employees experience challenges in attempting to juggle paid work and family responsibilities, and that these challenges are often highest among women employees with heavy household and child care responsibilities (Wyn et al., 2003). The phenomenon of women’s disproportionate burden of social reproduction (housework, child care, elder care, etc.) results, in part, from gender role expectations (Bird, 1999; Folbre, 2001; Greenstein, 2000). For some, tensions associated with work and family responsibilities may take the form of depression, anxiety, and stress, negative affect projected onto family life, or increased job absenteeism or turnover (Emslie et al., 2004). Employers and governments in industrialized countries across the globe have developed a variety of family leave policies to ease work and family stresses, and enhance employee productivity (Fagnani, 2012; Kamerman and Kahn, 1998; Kaufmann et al., 2002). Many employed women benefit from the availability of ‘family-friendly policies’ such as maternity leave, paternity leave, childcare leave, and work-schedule flexibility (Estes, 2004; Ezra and Deckman, 1996; Keene and Quadagno, 2004; Marquart, 1991; Salzstein et al., 2001; Tracey, 1999). Yet some research suggests a dilemma for some women: taking advantage of leave options may facilitate their ability to manage paid work and family responsibilities, while lessening their status as valued employees, particularly in the eyes of employers who discriminate based on gender (Bornstein, 2013; Cho, 2009; Evans et al., 2004; Stone and Hernandez, 2013). Researchers have called for expanded inquiry into the role of gender bias and employee stigma with regard to the structure and utilization of family leave policies, and work–family responsibilities and strains (Bornstein, 2013). How are issues such as leave availability, perceptions of gender bias, and women’s household responsibilities affecting the ability of women employees to balance work–life tensions and conflicts?

The present study explores two sets of relationships. We examine the moderating role and interaction effect of perceived gender discrimination on the relationships between the availability of family leave provisions and work–family conflict for women employees. We also examine the moderating role and interaction effects of housework responsibilities on the relationships between the availability of employer-provided family leave provisions and work–family conflict. The study analyzed secondary data from a sample of 1630 employed women surveyed for the 2008 Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families. Much previous research (Dorman, 2001; Saltzstein et al., 2001; Waldfogel, 2001) has focused on the direct relationships of leave and employees’ outcomes with little attention to moderating influences. We extend existing research by examining the moderating and interaction effects of perceived gender discrimination and housework responsibilities with leave availability and work–family conflict.

Further, the study contributes to the limited extant empirical information on leave availability in South Korea following its expansion of family leave policies over the past decade, using a nationally representative data set of employed women to examine employee work and family tensions. Among the 34 economies represented in the Organizations for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), South Korea is the lowest ranking in terms of female labor force participation (WEF, 2013), the gender gap of private net earnings benefits is the highest among OECD economies (OECD, 2013), and the accessibility of women to leave policies is limited (Chin et al., 2012). The recent expansion of work–family policies in South Korea has aimed to address these and other issues.

The conceptual model for the study is illustrated in Figure 1, and the model will be tested to examine the moderating roles of perceived gender discrimination and housework responsibilities on the relationships between availability of employer-provided family leave provisions and work–family conflict.

Figure 1.

A conceptual model.

Background and literature review

Work–family conflict

Combining work and family responsibilities may have both positive and negative emotional and material effects (Grzywacz and Marks, 2000; Hammer et al., 2005). The numbers of women reporting stress associated with juggling paid work and family responsibilities have been rising over the past decades as the percent of women and mothers in the workforce continues to increase worldwide, as do the numbers of both dual-earner and single-parent households (Gornick and Hegewisch, 2010; OECD, 2009). Research indicates that employed women continue to assume a higher share of household responsibilities than employed men or husbands (Bond et al., 2008; Wyn, et al., 2003). Work–life conflict is the term given to situations in which the demands of paid work and family responsibilities are incompatible in some ways, and such conflicts have been associated with anxiety and depression, somatic problems and exhaustion, and employment strains resulting in increased levels of job turnover and missed work (Ilies et al., 2007; Winslow, 2005).

Initiatives that address work–family conflicts and strains include ‘family friendly’ policies provided by governments and employers to facilitate employees’ management of paid work and family demands, provide overall support for the general welfare and viability of children and families, and promote an engaged and productive workforce (Bond et al., 2008; Gornick and Hegewisch, 2010). Policies that provide various types of paid and unpaid family benefits, including those for maternity, paternity, and child care leave, are common across most industrialized countries, and in some developing and lower-income countries (Gornick and Hegewisch, 2010). They vary widely in terms of wage replacement rates, duration, and purpose (Gauthier, 2002). Other initiatives aimed at easing work–family strains include job sharing, flexible work schedules, and supervisory support (Bond et al., 2008; Gornick and Meyers, 2003; Jang et al., 2011). Research finds that the availability of maternity leave is positively associated with return to paid work post-leave among women who were employed pre-birth (Berger and Waldfogel, 2004; Gornick and Hegewisch, 2010). Research also indicates that a number of family leave and other initiatives are positively associated with mental well-being, job commitment and retention, and enhanced work–life balance (Appelbaum et al., 2005; Hill et al., 2010; Jang et al., 2012; Milkman and Appelbaum, 2004; Saltzstein et al., 2001).

In South Korea and other Asian countries many family leave policies have been implemented or expanded in recent years, and one of the catalysts has been falling birth and marriage rates (Chin et al., 2012; Lee, 2009). In previous decades, many Koreans maintained large families, and the country was considered a ‘family reliant welfare state’ (Chin et al., 2012: 54; Chang, 2009); families, rather than universal public social and economic programs, were primary providers of old age assistance, child care, and other supports. Concerned that these high fertility rates would impair economic growth, national family planning policies were initiated by the Korean government in the 1970s and 1980s, which included aggressive informational campaigns and provision of health and family planning services (Kim, 2008). These policies, in combination with other social and demographic trends, resulted in plummeting birthrates which, in turn, generated concerns among policy-makers about labor shortfalls and negative impacts on national sustainability (Korean National Statistics, 2005; World Bank, 2009). In a paradigm shift, a series of family-supportive, governmental policies were enacted, including some focused on work–family balance among employed parents. These include: 90-day maternity leave with monthly allowances paid through employment insurance for employed female workers; one-year child care (or parental) leave with monthly allowances (available until children reach age six); reduced work schedules, child care subsidies, on-site child care, and health and family services (which vary according to individual company policies) (Chin et al., 2012).

Access and utilization of leave policies

In South Korea, as in many other countries with family policies, not all employed women have access to benefits (Evans, 2002). There exist a variety of restrictions with regard to eligibility for certain benefits across countries: a certain length of job tenure is often required; part-time workers may not be covered; temporary and contingent workers are typically not eligible; tax or social insurance contributions at various levels may be required; and small firms may not be required to provide all benefits. These rules vary widely: some countries offer near universal, public coverage for maternity leave and certain benefits; in others, such as the US, provisions and eligibility are often employer-determined, and quite limited (Gornick and Hegewisch, 2010; Gornick and Meyers, 2003; Waldfogel, 2001). Such eligibility restrictions can block access to benefits for many women in the labor force. In Korea, for example, about 70 percent of women working in paid jobs are not covered by family leave benefits because they are employed in temporary positions or are contingent workers (Korean Women Workers Association, 2010).

In addition to issues of access and availability, there are also varied levels of utilization of these benefits and policies by employees. That is, some women who are eligible choose not to use certain benefits, or do not exercise them fully (Allen, 2001; Bornstein, 2013; Hammer et al., 2005; Wisensale, 2001). The most universal and widely used benefit across countries is maternity leave following child birth. Utilization of this and other policies of paternity and child care leave, and a variety of other supports, varies by the length of the approved leave, wage replacement rates, individual job and income status, supervisory supports, social norms, workplace culture, and so forth (Berger and Waldfogel, 2004; Gornick and Hegewisch, 2010; Waldfogel et al., 1999). Though many countries and employers offer various forms of family leave to men and fathers as well as women, male utilization rates are typically very low (DeHenau et al., 2007; Gornick and Hegewisch, 2010; O’Brien, 2009).

In the case of South Korea, in addition to maternity leave, employed mothers and fathers may take up to one year of child care or parental leave until a child reaches the age of six. The wage replacement rate is typically around 40 percent of monthly salary (paid from national employment insurance), and the leave can be taken in one or two blocks of time. To be eligible, employees must have worked at their current worksite for at least one year, and paid into national employment insurance for at least 180 days prior. It is estimated that about 64 percent of mothers who use maternity leave also utilize some portion of the child care leave (Gornick and Meyers, 2003; Statistics Korea, 2012). It has been suggested that one of the reasons some eligible women may opt not to take the child care leave involves concerns about workplace gender bias toward mothers, and employers’ perceptions of their utility and commitment as employees (Chin et al., 2012; Hooyman and Gonyea, 1995).

Perceived gender discrimination as a moderator

It has been argued that though ‘family friendly’ policies are meant to enhance women’s positions in the workforce, they may also serve to stigmatize or devalue women’s workplace stature (Dodson, 2013; Evans et al., 2004; Meiksins and Whalley, 2002; Pettit and Hook, 2009; Stone and Hernandez, 2013). Explicit or implicit gender biases may be evidenced or perceived in workplace culture in the form of wage disparities, lagged promotion and advancement, and underrepresentation in positions of authority across various industries, professions, and cultures (Blum et al., 1994; Bornstein, 2013; Lyness and Thompson, 1997; Mueller and Wallace, 1996; Ngo et al., 2003; Shaffer et al., 2000; Smith, 2002; Stroh et al., 1992; Wright and Baxter, 1995). Research indicates that some men and women perceive indirect, negative messages from their employers regarding their possible use of family leave policies: some employees fear that they may be viewed as less loyal or committed, thereby jeopardizing future promotions, merit recognition, or wage increases (Cho, 2009; Coltrane et al., 2013; Mandel, 2011; Perlow, 1997; Viega et al., 2004). This hesitancy may be compounded among women who perceive gender discrimination at their workplace; they may have more reason to distrust employers’ responses to their use of leave. Ironically, the leave options that are meant to assist women to manage work and family obligations may – if perceived to work against them – be underutilized. Unrelieved work–family conflicts, especially among those with the highest family obligations might, in turn, lead to increased tensions (Hooyman and Gonyea, 1995; McBride, 2003).

We hypothesize that the availability of leave options is associated with stronger reductions in work–family conflict among those who perceive less gender discrimination. The perception of gender discrimination has an interactive relationship with leave availability and it moderates the associations between leave availability and the reduction of work–family conflict (Barnett, 2004; Hochschild, 1989; Voydanoff, 2004).

Hypothesis 1: The negative relationship between availability of leave and work–family conflict will be stronger for women employees who perceive less gender discrimination at a workplace than for those who perceive greater gender discrimination.

Housework responsibilities as a moderator

Housework responsibilities refers to the share of household chores that family or household members assume. Research has indicated that employees who carry heavier responsibilities for housework are more likely to perceive greater work and family conflict because of increased role and time pressures (Author, 2012; Adams et al., 1996; Baxter and Alexander, 2008; Ciabattari, 2007; Morehead, 2002). Women’s disproportionate burden of housework is associated with gender role expectations (Greenstein, 2000; Nancy, 2001) and it is related to work–family conflict and stress (Bird, 1999). We hypothesize that leave policies may ease time conflicts and reduce work–family conflict for women employees with heavier housework responsibilities.

Hypothesis 2: The negative relationship between availability of leave and work–family conflict is stronger for women employees with more housework responsibilities than for those with less.

Methods

Research design and sample

Our study used data from the 2008 Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families (KLoWF). This survey was conducted by the Korean Women’s Development Institute (KWDI) using computer assisted personal telephone interviews. The sample was randomly selected from the Population Census to represent women between the ages of 19 and 64 who reside in South Korea (n = 9997). The KLoWF focuses on two primary areas of women’s lives: work and family. It includes questions on women’s perceptions and attitudes toward work and family, as well as analyses of income and material conditions. Our study examines a sub-sample of women who were employed by others (n = 1630); full-time housewives and the self-employed were excluded because our hypotheses and variables are related to family policies available through employer-based work. The response rate was 36.7 percent for eligible households (KWDI, 2009). The KLoWF is a longitudinal study; our study analyzes data from the 2008 survey which is the latest accessible data.¹

Respondent characteristics

Among the sample of 1630 employed women, just over half, 55 percent, held a full-time job. Their occupations included managerial or professional (28%), sales or service (24%), clerical (22%), laborers (18%), and production, operation, or repair (8%). Most (63%) worked for small companies with fewer than 30 employees. Annual average earnings for those working full-time were $17,500 (US$1 = ₩1150) per year, and about $9000 for those working part-time. About three-quarters (76%) of the women were married or living with a partner, and just over half had at least one child. Their average age was 39 years. In terms of educational level, 19 percent had less than a high school education; 35 percent earned a high school diploma; 42 percent had some college or a bachelor’s degree; and 4 percent earned a graduate degree.

Measures

Available leave

Leave consisted of paid leaves that were available to respondents through their employers including time permitted for childbirth, personal illness, family illness, and child care leave. These items were adapted from the Leave Time Allowances Index developed by Secret and Sprang (2001), which is an index that includes comprehensive leave types. The survey for the current study asked the respondents whether or not these leave options are available to them through their employment. This construct was computed by summing the number of leave policies available for each respondent. Thus, this variable represents how many leave policies their company has. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of these four items was .93.

Work–family conflict

Work–family conflict was measured with three items that were adapted from items developed by Bond et al. (1998). The survey asked ‘Have you not had enough time for your family or other important people in your life because of your job?’; ‘Have you not been able to get everything done at home each day because of your job?’; and ‘Has your family or personal life kept you from concentrating on your job?’ Participants gave their responses on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of these three items was .82. The responses were reverse coded and averaged into a composite score, with higher scores indicating higher levels of work–family conflict.

Perceived gender discrimination

This construct was assessed by the degree to which the respondents perceived discrimination against women employees in their current workplace. The survey asked respondents to rate the level of truth of a series of statements about their current place of employment. Respondents were asked how strongly they perceived discrimination against women employees in terms of job selection, career advancement, compensation, education or training opportunities, and lay-off. They responded on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very true) to 4 (not at all true). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of these six items was .95. The responses were reverse coded and averaged into a composite score, with higher scores indicating perceived higher levels of female discrimination at their workplace.

Housework

Housework responsibilities were assessed by respondents’ degree of involvement in household chores. The survey asked ‘How often you have done the following work in your household in the past month?’, with items including cooking, laundry, dish washing, and cleaning. They responded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (every day) to 5 (less than once in a week). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of these four items was .78. The responses were reverse coded and averaged into a composite score, with higher scores indicating that they had more family responsibilities.

Control variables

We controlled for several variables that previous research has indicated may influence the dependent variable of work–family conflict (Brayfield et al., 2005; Hosking and Western, 2008; Huang et al., 2004; Jarvis et al., 2005). The control variables consisted of age, education, children, job status, occupation, wage, and company size. Age was measured by a continuous variable. The respondents were categorized by four education levels: less than high school; high school diploma; some college or bachelor’s degree; and graduate degree. Children were measured as the respondent’s total number of children. Job status was coded 1 when the women employee had a full-time job and 0 when she had a part-time job. Occupation was divided into five categories: managerial or professional; clerical; sales or service; and production, operation, or repair; and laborers. Wage was measured by the natural logarithm of annual pay. Company size was measured as a categorical variable that was developed and defined by the KLoWF, with the number of employees as fewer than 5; 5–9; 10–29; 30–99; 100–299; 300–999; and 1000 or more.

Analytic strategy

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the construct validity of the main variables (perceived discrimination, housework responsibilities, and work–family conflict) using a LISREL package. The three-factor model fit the data best among all possible models (from one-factor to three-factor). For example, the three-factor model fit better than the two-factor model, in which the items for housework and work-family conflict were loaded on a common factor (Δχ²₍₂₎= 758.1, p < . 01). The goodness-of-fit-indices for the three-factor model also indicated a good fit with the data (SRMR = .04, NFI = .95, CFI = .95, GFI = .93, AGFI = .89).

The roles of perceived gender discrimination and housework responsibilities as moderators were examined by hierarchical regression analyses. When the interactions of availability of leaves with perceived discrimination and housework were significant, it was ascertained that perceived discrimination and housework responsibilities moderated the relationships between availability of leave and work–family conflict.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and the correlations between the main variables. The upper cell includes all of the respondents, and the lower cell includes only couples (married or living with a partner). Because the survey asked housework items only to couples, the lower cell has fewer respondents. Availability of leave provisions had a negative correlation with housework responsibilities. However, this independent variable was not correlated with perceived gender discrimination and work–family conflict. Perceived gender discrimination was positively correlated with work–family conflict.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviation, and correlations.

	Mean	SD	1	2
Total sample (n = 1173)
1. Leave	1.32	1.73
2. Discrimination	1.97	.69	.05
3. Conflict	2.16	.69	−.02	.12**
Couple sample (n = 906)
1. Leave	1.21	1.72
2. Housework	4.43	.69	−.11**
3. Conflict	2.29	.64	.03	.06

p < .01.

Table 2 displays the results of ordinary least square (OLS) regressions to investigate the moderating role of gender discrimination. Model 1 examined the relationship of leave availability with work–family conflict. This equation showed that leave availability had no direct relationship with work–family conflict. That is, the degree of leave availability may not in general contribute to reducing work–family conflict. Model 2 examined the interaction of leave availability with perceived gender discrimination on work–family conflict. The interaction term had a significant and positive coefficient for the dependent variable (b = .04, p < .05). That is, the negative relationship of leave availability with work–family conflict was stronger for employees who perceived less gender discrimination, which supports Hypothesis 1.

Table 2.

Results of regression analysis for the moderating role of gender discrimination.

	Conflict	Conflict
	Model-1	Model-2
Constant	1.10 (.24)**	1.18 (.24)**
Age	−.01 (.00)*	−.01 (.00)*
Education	−.02 (.04)	−.03 (.04)
Marriage	.51 (.07)**	.52 (.07)**
Children	.08 (.02)**	.08 (.02)**
Full-time	.02 (.05)	.02 (.05)
Occupation
Professional	−.11 (.08)	−.10 (.08)
Administrative	−.15 (.08)*	−.15 (.08)*
Sales, service	.02 (.06)	.02 (.06)
Production	.10 (.08)	.09 (.08)
Wage	.15 (.04)**	.16 (.04)**
Employer size	−.03 (.01)*	−.03 (.01)†
Gender discrimination	.14 (.03)**	.10 (.03)**
Available leave	−.01 (.02)	−.09 (.03)*
Leave x Discrimination		.04 (.02)*
F	17.54**	16.74**
R ²	.16	.17
N	1173	1173

p < .01.

The moderating roles of perceived gender discrimination are illustrated in Figure 2. In Figure 2, the sample was divided into women employees who had less leave availability (mean minus one standard deviation) and those with more leave availability (mean plus one standard deviation), and women employees who perceived less gender discrimination and more gender discrimination (Aiken and West, 1991). The figure shows that the availability of leave had a negative relationship with work–family conflict for women employees who perceived less discrimination. For women employees who perceived more gender discrimination, however, the leave availability was positively associated with work–family conflict. To examine whether leave availability had a significant relationship with work–family conflict for each group, women employees who perceived more discrimination and women employees who perceived less discrimination, we tested significance of the simple slopes for each group, following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991). While leave availability was not significantly associated with work–family conflict for women employees who perceived more gender discrimination (b = .01, p > .10), it had a negative and significant relationship with work–family conflict for women employees who perceived less discrimination (b = −.04, p < .01). These results imply that women who perceived less gender discrimination at their workplaces reported less work–family conflict when they had more leave availability, but women who perceived more gender discrimination did not have significantly lower work–family conflict even when they had more leave availability.

Figure 2.

The moderating role of perceived gender discrimination on work–family conflict.

Table 3 presents the results of OLS regressions to investigate the moderating role of housework responsibilities. Model 1 investigated the relationship between leave availability and work–family conflict. Availability of leave had no direct relationship with work–family conflict. Model 2 examined the interaction of leave availability with housework responsibilities on work–family conflict. The interaction term had a significant and negative coefficient for the dependent variable (b = −.04, p < .05). That is, the negative relationship of leave availability with work–family conflict was stronger for women employees with more housework responsibilities, which supports Hypothesis 3.

Table 3.

Results of regression analyses for the moderating role of housework.

	Conflict	Conflict
	Model-1	Model-2
Constant	1.33 (.34)**	1.04 (.36)**
Age	−.00 (.00)	−.00 (.00)
Education	−.03 (.04)	−.03 (.04)
Children	.09 (.02)**	.09 (.02)**
Full-time	.08 (.05)	.08 (.05)
Occupation
Professional	−.12 (.09)	−.12 (.09)
Administrative	−.11 (.09)	−.11 (.09)
Sales, service	−.02 (.06)	−.01 (.06)
Production	.11 (.09)	.11 (.09)
Wage	.20 (.05)**	.20 (.05)**
Size	−.03 (.01)†	−.03 (.01)†
Housework	.05 (.03)†	.11 (.04)**
Available leave	−.02 (.02)	.14 (.07)†
Leave x Housework		−.04 (.02)*
F	4.88**	4.88**
R ²	.06	.07
N	907	907

p < .01.

The moderating roles of housework are illustrated in Figure 3. In this figure, the sample was divided into women employees who reported less involvement in housework (mean minus one standard deviation) and more involvement in housework (mean plus one standard deviation) (Aiken and West, 1991). The availability of leave had a negative relationship with work–family conflict regardless of how much housework was assumed by women employees. To examine whether leave availability had a significant relationship with work–family conflict for each group, we tested significance of the simple slopes for each group. Leave availability was negatively and significantly related to work–family conflict for women employees who had more involvement in housework (b = −.07, p < .05). For women employees who had less involvement in housework, however, leave availability was not significantly associated with work–family conflict (b = −.01, p > .10).

Figure 3.

The moderating role of housework on work–family conflict.

Discussion and implications

In the present study, we examined whether the relationships between leave availability and work–family conflict were moderated by perceived gender discrimination and housework responsibilities. Overall, the findings suggest that leave availability is more strongly associated with reduced work–family conflict among those who perceive less gender discrimination at their workplace. In addition, leave availability is more strongly associated with reduced work and family conflict among women with higher housework responsibilities. The findings are consistent with previous research that examined associations between family-friendly policies including leave availability, and reductions in work–family stress (Allen, 2001; Jang, 2009; Saltzstein et al., 2001; Secret and Sprang, 2001;). Our study expands existing research with regard to the moderating effects of perceived gender discrimination and housework responsibilities on the relationships between leave availability and work–family conflict, and with its focus on a nationally representative sample of employed women in South Korea.

Governments and private employers – including those in South Korea – have invested in family leave provisions with the intent of easing work–family tensions, enhancing employee engagement and productivity, and supporting the ability of women and men to maintain employment while caring for children or other family members, and attending to household responsibilities. In our study, the women with the greatest housework responsibilities were among those most likely to report reduced conflict in association with leave availability. Given their higher household responsibilities, this is a subgroup that is at greater risk for job absenteeism and turnover (Baxter and Alexander, 2008; Ciabattari, 2007; Morehead, 2002; Author, 2012), and typically includes higher numbers of single parents and women with young children. It is notable that it is the availability of leave options, rather than their actual use, that was measured. The availability of the leave option may provide a positive psychological effect as well as tangible benefits; it offers support if needed, and may be viewed as a validation of employees’ situations and potential needs, which in turn reduces stress. It might also indicate that women with leave availability are working in higher quality jobs, with which they are more satisfied. Future research could further explore empirically the reasons for this association, and examine whether leave availability is also associated with greater job retention among this group, and enhanced individual and family well-being.

The findings regarding perceptions of gender discrimination provide intriguing clues as to the context and ramifications of leave availability. In this study, the construct of perceived gender discrimination was defined to include discriminatory practices with regard to monetary compensation, career advancement, and educational or training opportunities. Again, in our sample, the associations among leave availability and reduced work and family conflict were weaker among women who perceived greater gender discrimination at their workplace. This may suggest that an environment that is viewed by female employees as biased contributes to job-related stress and dissatisfactions (Keene and Quadagno, 2004; Zhao et al., 2011). It could be hypothesized that such dissatisfactions may, in turn, have implications for employees’ use of leave options. Employees who perceive greater gender discrimination may be more suspicious of employers’ responses to their leave taking with regard to potential negative consequences for recognition or promotion, and may make some employees fearful of utilizing leave, a response that has been suggested by some other empirical studies (Chin et al., 2012; Hooyman and Gonyea, 1995). Forsaking leave options may consequently challenge job performance, and family well-being, as women juggle work and family demands without available job supports. Future research could further explore the basis for women’s perceptions of workplace discrimination, and its effects on leave decisions, job retention, and personal and family welfare. The findings underscore the potential wide-ranging effects of public and employer policies and regulations that address the structural issues of workplace gender equality and protection of employee rights.

A growing number of researchers have raised concerns regarding possible unintended deleterious effects of family leave policies on women’s job and economic status. One set of concerns includes whether – by facilitating interrupted job trajectories – women suffer long-term wage depression and stunted career advancement because the culture and structure of work have not adequately changed to reflect shifts in labor force demographics and circumstances, and because it is women, rather than men, who utilize the majority of leave options (Bergman, 2008; Mandel and Semyonov, 2006; Ruhm, 1997). That is, many employers continue to reward (for men and women) uninterrupted and full-time service, and there is low monetary and reputational recognition and respect for alternate career pacing or paths. In addition, because women are more likely to utilize leave options due to gendered care burdens, they may be positioned to continue to assume an overly heavy load of family responsibilities (Jacobs and Gerson, 2004; Runte and Mills, 2004). It can be argued that gender discrimination is a component of such a culture and structure, and that effective efforts to ease work–family conflicts will need to include this in their scope.

Limitations

The limitations of the study include the following. The ability to ascertain the causal directions of associations is limited because our study examined cross-sectional data. This issue may be qualified, however, because the possibilities of conversed causality between independent and dependent variables are few. Importantly, future research should examine whether and how leave availability reduces work–family conflict over time. The present study focuses on South Korea only; future investigations can explore whether these associations are present among employed women in other countries, and in what contexts. The measures are limited to the items included in the secondary data set. Most of the measures used are low-range, ordinal level, with no strict numerical relationships between categories and no information about how differences in categories are assessed. Although the current study focused on leave availability and employees’ work and family strains, other factors affecting work and family situations and tensions may also contribute to work–family conflict.

Conclusion

In South Korea, an impetus for expanded government-sponsored family leave policies was to facilitate employees’ capacity to combine paid work and unpaid family responsibilities. This study suggests that such capacities – in terms of reduced work and family strains – may be associated with leave availability, particularly for women with the highest housework responsibilities and those who feel most confident with regard to fair treatment by their employer in terms of hiring, advancement, compensation, and training opportunities for women. The findings suggest the importance of future research that examines related structural issues including: expansion of the numbers of women in paid work who have access to leave options (given the proportion of women in Korea employed in uncovered, contingent positions); and ways in which workplace structure and culture may better support career recognition and the advancement of women and men who take up family leave options. Finally, for future research, in-depth qualitative information could add to the findings of this study to explore women’s family contexts, experiences and assumptions related to work–family combination and could elucidate the question related to perceptions of utilization of leave policies.

Footnotes

Funding

The present research was conducted by the research fund of Dankook university in 2012.

Notes

Author biographies

Soo Jung Jang is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Welfare, Dankook University, South Korea.

Allison Zippay is a professor in the School of Social Work, Rutgers University, USA

Rhokeun Park is an associate professor in the College of Business Administration Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea

References

Adams

King

(1996) ‘Relationships of Job and Family Involvement, Family Social Support, and Work–Family Conflict with Job and Life Satisfaction’, Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 411–20.

Aiken

L.S.

West

S.G.

(1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Allen

T.D.

(2001) ‘Family-supportive Work Environments: The Role of Organizational Perceptions’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 58: 414–35.

Appelbaum

Bailey

Berg

Kalleberg

(2005) ‘Organizations and the Intersection of Work and Family’, in Ackroyd

Batt

Tolbert

P.S.

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization, pp. 52–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barnett

R.C.

(2004) ‘Women and Multiple Roles: Myths and Reality’, Harvard Review Psychiatry 12(3): 158–64.

Baxter

Alexander

(2008) ‘Mothers’ Work-to-family Strain in Single and Couple Parent Families: The Role of Job Characteristics and Supports’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 43: 195–214.

Berger

Waldfogel

(2004) ‘Maternity Leave and the Employment of New Mothers in the United States’, Journal of Population Economics 17(2): 331–49.

Bergman

(2008) ‘Long Leaves, Child Well-being, and Gender Equality’, Politics and Society 36(3): 350–9.

Bird

C.E.

(1999) ‘Gender, Household Labor, and Psychological Distress: The Impact of the Amount and Division of Housework’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior 40: 32–45.

10.

Blum

T.C.

Fields

S.L.

Goodman

J.S.

(1994) ‘Organizational Level Determinants of Women in Management’, Academy of Management Journal 37: 241–68.

11.

Bond

F.W.

Flaxman

P.E.

Bunce

(2008) ‘The Influence of Psychological Flexibility on Work Redesign: Mediated Moderation of a Work Reorganization Intervention’, Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 645–54.

12.

Bond

J.T.

Galinsky

Swanberg

J.E.

(1998) The 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.

13.

Bornstein

(2013) ‘The Legal and Policy Implications of the “Flexibility Stigma”’, Journal of Social Issues 69(2): 389–405.

14.

Brayfield

Mennino

Rubin

(2005) ‘Home-to-job and Job-to-home Spillover: The Impact of Company Policies and Workplace Culture’, Sociological Quarterly 46: 107–35.

15.

Chang

(2009) Family, Life Course, and Politics: The Micro-Foundation of Compressed Modernity. Seoul: Changbisa.

16.

Chin

Lee

Son

Sung

(2012) ‘Family Policy in South Korea; Development, Current Status, and Challenges’, Journal of Child Family Studies 21: 53–64.

17.

Cho

J.E.

(2009) Work-Family Policies: Limitations and Suggestions (Current Issues Report No. 51). Seoul: National Assembly Research Service.

18.

Ciabattari

(2007) ‘Single Mothers, Social Capital, and Work–Family Conflict’, Journal of Family Issues 28: 34–60.

19.

Coltrane

Miller

E.C.

DeHaana

Stewart

(2013) ‘Fathers and the Flexibiity Stigma’, The Social Science Journal 38(2): 279–301.

20.

DeHenau

Meulders

O’Dorchai

(2007) ‘Parents’ Care and Career. Comparing Parental Leave Policies across EU-15’, in DelBoca

Wetzels

(eds) Social Policies, Labour Markets and Motherhood: A Comparative Analysis for European Countries, pp. 63–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Dodson

(2013) ‘Stereotyping Low-wage Mothers Who Have Work and Family Conflicts’, Journal of Social Issues 69(2): 257–78.

22.

Dorman

(2001) ‘Maternity and Family Leave Policies: A Comparative Analysis’, The Social Science Journal 38(2): 189–201.

23.

Emslie

Hunt

Macintyre

(2004) ‘Gender, Work-Home, and Morbidity among White-Collar Bank Employees in the United States’, International Journal of Behavior Medicine 11(3): 127–34.

24.

Estes

S.B.

(2004) ‘How are Family-responsive Workplace Arrangements Family Friendly? Employer Accommodations, Parenting, and Children’s Socioemotional Well-being’, The Sociological Quarterly 45(4): 637–61.

25.

Evans

J.M.

(2002) ‘Work/family Reconciliation, Gender Wage Equity and Occupational Segregation: The Role of Firms and Public Policy’, Canadian Public Policy 18(Suppl.): 187–216.

26.

Evans

Kunda

Barley S

(2004) ‘Beach Time, Bridge Time, and Billable Hours: The Temporal Structure of Technical Contracting’, Administrative Science Quarterly 49(1): 1–38.

27.

Ezra

Deckman

(1996) ‘Balancing Work and Family Responsibilities: Flextime and Childcare in the Federal Government’, Public Administration Review 56(2): 174–6.

28.

Fagnani

(2012) ‘Recent Reforms in Childcare and Family Policies in France and Germany: What Was at Stake?’, Children and Youth Services Review 34(3): 509–16.

29.

Folbre

(2001) The Invisible Heart. New York: The New Press.

30.

Gauthier

(2002) ‘Family Policies in Industrialized Countries: Is There Convergence?’, Population 57(3): 447–74.

31.

Gornick

Hegewisch

(2010) ‘The Impact of “Family-friendly Policies” on Women’s Employment Outcomes and on the Costs and Benefits of Doing Business’, report commissioned for the World Bank, June. Available online at: www.hsph.harvard.edu/…/gornick-hegewisch-wb-prepubversion-2010

32.

Gornick

Meyers

(2003) Families That Work: Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

33.

Greenstein

T.N.

(2000) ‘Economic Dependence, Gender, and the Division of Labor in the Home: A Replication and Extension’, Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 322–35.

34.

Grzywacz

J.G.

Marks

N.E.

(2000) ‘Family, Work, Work–Family Spillover, and Problem Drinking During Midlife’, Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 336–48.

35.

Hammer

Neal

Newsom

Brockwood

Colton

(2005) ‘A Longitudinal Study or the Effects of Dual-Earner Couples’ Utilization of Family-Friendly Workplace Supports on Work and Family Outcomes’, Journal of Applied Psychology 90(4): 799–810.

36.

Hill

E.J.

Erickson

J.J.

Holmes

E.K.

Ferris

(2010) ‘Workplace Flexibility, Work Hours, and Work–Life Conflict: Finding an Extra Day or Two’, Journal of Family Psychology 24: 349–58.

37.

Hochschild

(1989) The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New York: Viking Press.

38.

Hooyman

N.R.

Gonyea

(1995) Feminist Perspectives on Family Care. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

39.

Hosking

Western

(2008) ‘The Effects of Non-standard Employment on Work–Family Conflict’, Journal of Sociology 44: 5–27.

40.

Huang

Hammer

Neal

Perrin

(2004) ‘The Relationship between Work-to-Family Conflict and Family-to-Work Conflict: A Longitudinal Study’, Journal of Family and Economic Issues 25: 79–100.

41.

Ilies

Schwind

Wagner

Johnson

DeRue

D.S.

Ilgen

(2007) ‘When Can Employees Have a Family Life? The Effects of Daily Workload and Affect on Work–family Conflict and Social Behaviors at Home’, Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1368–79.

42.

Jacobs

J.A.

Gerson

(2004) The Time Divide Work, Family, and Gender Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

43.

Jang

S.J.

(2009) The Relationships of Flexible Work Schedules, Workplace Support, Supervisory Support, Work-Life Balance, and the Well-Being of Working Parents. Journal of Social Service Research 35(2): 93–104.

44.

Jang

S.J.

Park

R.K.

Zippay

(2011) The Interaction Effects of Scheduling Control and Work-Life Balance Programs on Job Satisfaction and Mental Health. International Journal of Social Welfare 20(2): 135–143.

45.

Jang

S.J.

Zippay

Park

R.K.

(2012) Family Roles as Moderators of the Relationship Between Schedule Flexibility and Stress. Journal of Marriage and Family 74(4): 897–912.

46.

Jarvis

L.H.

Roehling

P.V.

Swope

(2005) ‘Variations in Negative Work–Family Spillover among White, Black, and Hispanic American Men and Women: Does Ethnicity Matter?’, Journal of Family Issues 26: 840–65.

47.

Kamerman

Kahn

(1998) Privatization, Contracting and Reform of Child & Family Services. Washington, DC: The Finance Project.

48.

Kaufmann

F.X.

Kuijsten

Schulze

H.J.

Strohmeier

K.P.

(eds) (2002) Family Life and Family Policies in Europe, Volume II: Problems and Issues in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

49.

Keene

J.R.

Quadagno

(2004) ‘Predictors of Perceived Work–Family Balance: Gender Difference or Gender Similarity?’, Sociological Perspectives 47(1): 1–23.

50.

Kim

(2008) ‘The Duality of Family Changes in Korea’, The Journal of Asian Women 47(2): 7–37.

51.

Korean Women’s Development Institute (KWDI) (2009) The 2008 Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families, Seoul.

52.

Korean Women Workers Association (2010) ‘Unstable Jobs’, press conference of the win-win women’s action in commemoration of the international women’s day 2010, available online at: http://kwwa.tistory.com/451.

53.

Korea National Statistical Office (2005) Korea Society Index.

54.

Lee

(2009) ‘Low Fertility and Policy Responses in Korea’, The Japanese of Population 7(1): 57–70.

55.

Lyness

K.S.

Thompson

D.E.

(1997) ‘Above the Glass Ceiling? A Comparison of Matched Samples of Female and Male Executive’, Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 359–75.

56.

Mandel

Semyonov

(2006) ‘A Welfare State Paradox: State Interventions and Women’s Employment Opportunities in 22 Countries’, American Journal of Sociology 111(6): 1910–49.

57.

Mandel

(2011) ‘Rethinking the Paradox: Tradeoffs in Work-Family Policy and Patterns of Gender Inequality’, Community, Work, and Family 14(2): 159–76.

58.

Marquart

(1991) ‘How Does the Employer Benefit from Child Care’, in Hyde

J.S.

Esses

M.J.

(eds) Parental Leave and Child Care. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

59.

McBride

(2003) ‘Reconciling Competing Pressures for Working-time Flexibility: An Impossible Task in the National Health Service (NHS)?’, Work, Employment and Society 17(1): 159–70.

60.

Meiksins

Whalley P

(2002) Putting Work in Its Place. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

61.

Milkman

Appelbaum

(2004) ‘Paid Family Leave in California: New Research Findings’, The State of California Labor 4: 45–67.

62.

Morehead

(2002) ‘Behind the Paid Working Hours of Single Mothers: Managing Change and Constructing Support’, Family Matters 61: 56–61.

63.

Mueller

C.W.

Wallace

J.E.

(1996) ‘Justice and the Paradox of the Contented Female Worker’, Social Psychology Quarterly 59: 338–49.

64.

Nancy

(2001) The Invisible Heart. New York: The New Press.

65.

Ngo

Foley

Wong

Loi

(2003) ‘Who Gets More of the Pie? Predictors of Perceived Gender Inequality at Work’, Journal of Business Ethics 45: 227–41.

66.

OECD (2009) Employment Outlook 2009. Paris: OECD.

67.

OECD (2013) Education at a Glance 2013. Paris: OECD.

68.

O’Brien

(2009) ‘Fathers, Parental Leave Policies, and Infant Quality of Life: International Perspectives and Policy Impact’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 624(1): 190–213.

69.

Perlow

(1997) Finding Time: How Corporations, Individuals and Families Can Benefit from New Work Practices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

70.

Pettit

Hook

(2009) Gendered Trade-Offs: Family, Social Policy, and Economic Inequality in Twenty-One Countries. New York: Russell Sage.

71.

Ruhm

C.J.

(1997) ‘Policy Watch: The Family and Medical Leave Act’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 11(3): 175–86.

72.

Runte

Mills

A.J.

(2004) ‘Paying the Toll: A Feminist Post-structural Critique of the Discourse Bridging Work and Family’, Culture and Organization 10(3): 237–49.

73.

Salzstein

A.L.

Ting

Salzstein

G.H.

(2001) ‘Work-Family Balance and Job Satisfaction: The Impact of Family-Friendly Policies on Attitudes of Federal Government Employees’, Public Administration Review 61(4): 452–67.

74.

Secret

Sprang

(2001) ‘The Effects of Family-Friendly Workplace Environments on Work–Family Stress of Employed Parents’, Journal of Social Service Research 28(2): 21–45.

75.

Shaffer

Joplin

Bell

Lau

Oguz

(2000) ‘Gender Discrimination and Job-related Outcomes: A Cross-cultural Comparison of Working Women in the United States and China’, Journal of Vocational Behavior 57(3): 395–427.

76.

Smith

(2002) ‘Race, Gender, and Authority in the Workplace: Theory and Research’, Annual Review of Sociology 28: 509–42.

77.

Statistics Korea (2012) Available online at: http://www.index.go.kr/egams/stts/jsp/potal/stts/PO_STTS_IdxMain.jsp?idx_cd=1504

78.

Stone

Ackerly Hernandez

(2013) ‘The All-or-nothing Workplace: Flexibility Stigma and “Opting Out” among Professional-Managerial Women’, Journal of Social Issues 69(2): 235–56.

79.

Stroh

L.K.

Brett

J.M.

Reilly

A.H.

(1992) ‘All the Right Stuff: Career Progression of Female and Male Managers’, Journal of Applied Psychology 77: 251–60.

80.

Tracey

(1999) ‘Working Mothers: A Review’, Gender, Work & Organization 6(3): 174–6.

81.

Viega

Baldridge

Eddleston

(2004) ‘Toward Understanding Employee Reluctance to Participate in Family Friendly Programs’, Human Resource Management Review 14(3): 337–51.

82.

Voydanoff

(2004) ‘The Effects of Work Demands and Resources on Work-to-family Conflict and Facilitation’, Journal of Marriage and Family 66(2): 398–412.

83.

Waldfogel

(2001) ‘What Other Nations Do: International Policies toward Parent Leave and Child Care’, The Future of Children 11(1): 99–111.

84.

Waldfogel

Higuchi

Abe

(1999) ‘Family Leave Policies and Women’s Retention after Childbirth: Evidence from the United States, Britain, and Japan’, Journal of Population Economics 12(4): 523–45.

85.

Winslow

(2005) ‘Work–Family Conflict, Gender, and Parenthood, 1977–1997’, Journal of Family Issues 26: 727–55.

86.

Wisensale

(2001) Family Leave Policy: The Political Economy of Work and Family in America. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

87.

World Bank (2009) World Development Indicators 2009.

88.

World Economic Forum (WEI) (2013) ‘Slow Progress in Closing Global Economic Gender Gap, New Major Study Finds’, available online at: http://www.weforum.org/news/slow-progress-closing-global-economic-gender-gap-new-major-study-finds.

89.

Wright

Baxter

(1995) ‘The Gender Gap in Workplace Authority: A Cross-national Study’, American Sociological Review 60: 407–35.

90.

Wyn

Ojeda

Ranji

Salqanicoff

(2003) ‘Women, Work, and Family Health: A Balancing Act’, available online at: http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/3336-index.cfm (accessed 2 July 2007).

91.

Zhao

Settles

Sheng

(2011) ‘Family-to-Work Conflict: Gender, Equity and Workplace Policies’, Journal of Comparative Family Studies 42(5): 723–38.