The Effects of Family-Friendly Policies on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment

Abstract

The aim of this research is to analyze the effects of family-friendly policies on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Using the Korean Labor & Income Panel Study (KLIPS) from 2006 to 2013, this study finds significant positive relationships between the number of family-friendly policies and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. More specifically, receiving maternity leave and child care leave benefits is positively associated with job satisfaction, whereas child care subsidy does not show a significant effect on job satisfaction. Furthermore, organizational commitment has a positive relationship with child care leave, maternity leave, and child care subsidy.

Keywords

family-friendly policies job satisfaction organizational commitment

Introduction

Over the past decade, the composition of the global labor force has experienced drastic changes, developing into a heterogeneous workforce (Chin, Lee, Lee, Son, & Sung, 2012; Riccucci, 2002). In particular, the proportion of women participating in both U.S. and South Korea’s labor pool continues to grow steadily since the 2000s (Ali, Kulik, & Metz, 2011). In the United States, for example, female labor participation has increased drastically from one third of the working population in 1960 to more than 50% in the 2010s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Likewise, female participation in Korea’s workforce has increased from 37.2% in 1965 to 50% in 2012 (Statistics Korea, 2013). Accordingly, organizations have begun to discuss the imperative need to support female employees by encouraging work-family balance, which is related to outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover rate (Beauregard & Henry, 2009; Huang, Lawler, & Lei, 2007). Under these circumstances, governments and firms now adopt various family-friendly policies such as maternity leave, child care leave, and child care subsidy to better address social demands.

In line with these changes, scholarly interest is now given in seeking the effects of family-friendly policies on work motivation, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Caillier, 2012, 2013; Clifton & Shepard, 2004; Saltzstein, Ting, & Saltzstein, 2001). Findings on the relationships between family-friendly policies and work motivation are controversial. While some studies find a negative relationship between family-friendly policies and motivation (Saltzstein et al., 2001), others find a positive relationship (Caillier, 2012, 2013; Saltzstein et al., 2001). Most of these studies examine the effects of family-friendly policies using cross-sectional data (Clifton & Shepard, 2004; J. Kim & Wiggins, 2011; Lee & Hong, 2011; Saltzstein et al., 2001). To date, there are few studies that analyze the effects of family-friendly policies using longitudinal data (Bae & Goodman, 2014; Caillier, 2016).

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether family-friendly policies such as child care leave, maternity leave, and child care subsidies have positive relationships with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The contribution of this research on previous literature on family-friendly policies is twofold. First, this study explores the causal relationship between family-friendly policies and work motivation by using longitudinal data from 2006 to 2013. Whereas previous research looks into the effects of family-friendly policies on work motivation, few studies investigate the relationship using panel data. Bae and Goodman (2014) and Caillier (2016), for instance, explore the effects of the number of family-friendly policies on organizational performance and turnover rate using organizational-level panel data. This study builds on previous research by looking into the impact of various family-friendly policies on job satisfaction and organizational commitment based on panel data at the individual level. Furthermore, few studies, until now, examine the different effects of the official adoption and actual eligibility of telework programs (Bae & Kim, 2016; Caillier, 2013). In most cases, previous literature does not consider whether employees are actually entitled to receive the officially adopted family-friendly policies in the workplace. Therefore, we examine beyond the existence of family-friendly policies adopted by organizations and instead investigate the effects of these policies based on eligibility for employees. This study aims to supplement previous research by examining the effects of employees’ eligibility of family-friendly policies on job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Theoretical Background and Literature Review

Family-Friendly Policies in South Korea

Family-friendly policies in South Korea’s organizations can be divided into two broad categories: leave policies and parental policies. Leave policies include maternity leave, child care leave, and reduced work schedule, whereas child care policies consist of parental subsidy and on-site child care (Chin et al., 2012). According to the Labor Standards Act, a pregnant female employee is entitled to a total of 90 days of maternity leave before and/or after childbirth of which 45 days or more shall be allocated after childbirth (Labor Standards Act of 2014). In addition, a mother who has delivered twins or more is entitled to a total of 120 days of maternity leave (Ministry of Employment and Labor [MOEL], 2014). Furthermore, Employment Insurance guarantees female employees full wage from their employer for the first 60 days and entitles employees to partial or full payment covered by Employment Insurance for the remaining 30 days (Chin et al., 2012, p. 55). For employees working in an organization that needs preferential support,¹ wage during the total 90 days of maternity leave before and/or after childbirth are provided by Employment Insurance (MOEL, 2014). The Employment Insurance also ensures that the leave taker’s monthly allowance shall not be lower than the minimum wage. In addition to maternity leave, employed fathers are also allowed 3 days of unpaid paternity leave (Labor Standards Act of 2014).

Employed mothers and fathers are eligible to use child care leave for up to 1 year until the child’s eighth birthday or before the child enters second grade (Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation, 2011). When the child care leave policy began in 1987, only mothers with a child under the age of 1 year were able to utilize unpaid leave. This policy was altered in 2010, and now the mother or father with a child up to the age of 6 years may utilize child care leave (Chin et al., 2012). Each parent is entitled to his or her own child care leave; however, parents cannot simultaneously claim the benefit (Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation, 2011). The Employment Insurance also guarantees a leave taker’s wage replacement at 40% of his or her monthly salary at approximately between US$450 to US$900 during the leave. Since 2014, when the mother and father take the child care leave one after another for the same child, the second person can be granted 100% of the ordinary wage for his or her first wage during the leave period (MOEL, 2014). To implement child care leave, employees must have worked at the current workplace for a minimum of 1 year and must have paid Employment Insurance for more than 180 days (Chin et al., 2012).

In addition to maternity leave and child care leave, the Korean government is currently focusing on providing financial support to parents. Both central and local governments provide parental subsidies to those with children up to 6 years of age (Chin et al., 2012). Eligibility and subsidy amount are different according to household characteristics such as household income, child’s age, or if there is a child with special needs. Since 2013, the government provides subsidies for families with a child aged between 0 to 5 years, which covers the full cost of child care center tuition. Because the three most commonly claimed policies in Korea are maternity leave, child care leave, and child care subsidies, we will take a close look at the effects of these policies to seek their relationships with work motivation.

Social Exchange Theory and Work Motivation

In general, early theoretical literature that seeks the relationship between family-friendly policies and work motivation is based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Caillier, 2012, 2013; S. Y. Lee & Hong, 2011). Blau (1964) defines social exchange as “voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others” (p. 93). Social exchange theory explains why employees benefit from their organization’s family-friendly policies by stating that they feel motivated and are willing to reciprocate to their organization. Social exchange theory posits that “people should help those who have helped them” and “people should not injure those who have helped them” (Gouldner, 1960, p. 171). According to social exchange theory, employees voluntarily reciprocate after receiving benefits from their organization (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005; Haas & Deseran, 1981), and this leads to positive behaviors toward their organization (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Haas & Deseran, 1981; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997).

The theory of work motivation builds on the notion that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors affect the “direction,” “intensity,” and “duration” of their job-related activities (Locke & Latham, 2004, p. 388). Anderfuhren-Biget, Varone, Giauque, and Ritz (2010) also state that “work motivation . . . is a process by which the employee decides to work hard and sustain his/her efforts” (p.216). Motivation plays an essential role in boosting organizational performance, and thus many scholars and practitioners emphasize the importance of work motivation and continue to explore the components of motivation. Among many factors related to work motivation, this study focuses on job satisfaction and organizational commitment because these two factors are central components in explaining work motivation (Locke, 1997). Job satisfaction is defined as the “positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Studies to date show that job satisfaction is indeed related to several motivational factors such as pay, family-friendly policies, the length of organizational membership, sense of public service, and others (Caillier, 2012, Locke & Latham, 2004; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). The second factor, organizational commitment, is defined as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979, p. 226). Organizations consider organizational commitment to be highly desirable because it reduces turnover rate, thus decreasing organizational costs (Bozeman & Perrewe, 2001). Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) and Williams and Hazer (1986) distinguish job satisfaction and organizational commitment. They state that organizational comment is an effective response to beliefs about the organization, but job satisfaction is a response to the experience of specific job tasks. Accordingly, Mowday et al. (1982) mention that “commitment emphasizes attachment to the employing organization, including its goals and values, whereas satisfaction emphasizes the specific task environment where an employee performs his or her duties” (p. 28).

Literature to date shows diverse effects of family-friendly policies on job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Caillier, 2013; Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Saltzstein et al., 2001). Saltzstein et al. (2001) state that family-friendly policies may have both advantages and disadvantages on work motivation according to the groups within the workplace and also in relation to the nature of the home working environment. They find that compressed schedules result in a negative effect on job satisfaction for young single men while working at home on the clock has positive effects on job satisfaction in nearly every case. Child care increases job satisfaction within many employee groups, but part-time work has no impact on job satisfaction (Saltzstein et al., 2001). Caillier (2013) finds that teleworking itself does not increase job satisfaction because teleworking reduces face-to-face interaction among employees, causing workers to feel isolated. Furthermore, telework employees with children have higher stress levels than employees without children due to frequent interruptions during work and greater demand for household care (Saltzstein et al., 2001). Supervisors in organizations with telework programs are concerned with the issue of moral hazard because they are unable to watch over employees (Newman & Mathews, 1999; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000). Using the 1991 Survey of Federal Employees collected by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), however, Ezra and Deckman (1996) find that married employees are more likely to have higher levels of satisfaction with child care policies than single workers. According to Roberts, Gianakis, McCue, and Wang (2004), public officials in local governments also consider that child care policies are one of the most important family-friendly policies compared with other family-friendly policies. Moon and Roh (2010) find that balance between work and family life is the strongest factor that increases job motivation compared with knowledge and use of family-friendly policies.

Social exchange theory also suggests that when organizations provide family-friendly policies to their workers, employees reciprocate by becoming more committed to their employers (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Allen (2001) also states that employees who perceive their company to be family-supportive tend to show higher levels of organizational commitment. Using the 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, Caillier (2012) finds that satisfaction with teleworking has a positive effect on organizational commitment. The results imply that organizational commitment is enhanced when organizations provide family-friendly policies to help employees fulfill their family responsibilities. In line with previous research, we propose that participation in family-friendly policies has a positive relationship with job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Figure 1).

Hypothesis 1: Public employee participation in family-friendly policies is positively associated with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1a: Receiving maternity leave benefit is positively associated with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1b: Receiving child care leave benefit is positively associated with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1c: Receiving child care subsidy is positively associated with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Public employee participation in family-friendly policies is positively associated with organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 2a: Receiving maternity leave benefit is positively associated with organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 2b: Receiving child care leave benefit is positively associated with organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 2c: Receiving child care subsidy is positively associated with organizational commitment.

Figure 1.

Theoretical research model.

Data and Methods

Sample

To test the above hypotheses, we used a panel research design where respondents answer to the same questionnaire in multiple waves from 2006 to 2013. This study uses data from the Korea Labor & Income Panel Study (KLIPS) collected from the Korea Labor Institute from 2006 to 2013. KLIPS is a longitudinal survey of each adult member of a nationally equally representative sample of households from seven metropolitan cities and urban areas in eight provinces. Among initial contact with 5,000 households, 3,773 households responded to the survey showing a 75% success rate. The remaining 25% was replaced by other randomly selected households. The survey is designed to collect a wide range of information on individuals such as income, family background, education, demographic information, and respondents’ socioeconomic values.

For the panel data analysis, we exclude observations with missing data to construct a balanced panel data. This study creates subsample which consists of employees who work in public institutions such as the government or government-related organizations, that is, government-funded organizations or public corporations. This study retains 3,501 observations including 1,451 female and 2,050 male employees. The average age for the sample is 41.56 years. The average work duration is 18.10 years, and the average yearly salary is 29,501,600 Korean Won. Among the 3,501 employees, 727 employees work in the Seoul metroplex. Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and measures of all variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	M/Proportion/SD	Minimum	Maximum	Questionnaires
Job satisfaction (α = .898)	M = 3.73 SD = 0.61	1	5	I am satisfied with my current job I enjoy this job I feel this job to be personally rewarding
Organizational commitment (α = .874)	M = 3.80 SD = 0.61	1	5	I take pride in being a part of this company I am glad to have joined this company I hope to continue working at this company if other things remain the same
Maternity leave	Yes = 1,844 No = 850	0	1	Is the respondent entitled to receive maternity leave? [1] Yes/[2] No Note: The variable is coded as a binary variable; [1] is coded as 1, and is [2] is coded as 0
Child care leave	Yes = 1,900 No = 704	0	1	Is the respondent entitled to receive child care leave? [1] Yes/[2] No Note: The variable is coded as a binary variable; [1] is coded as 1, and is [2] is coded as 0
Child care subsidy	Yes = 1,195 No = 272	0	1	Is the respondent entitled to receive child care subsidy? [1] Yes/[2] No Note: The variable is coded as a binary variable; [1] is coded as 1, and is [2] is coded as 0
Female	Female = 1,451 Male = 2,050	0	1	Are you: Male/Female. Note: Female is coded as 1
Salary	M = 2,950.16 SD = 1,544.53	20	10,800	Total after-tax yearly earning income (unit: 10,000 won)
Age	M = 41.56 SD = 11.28	15	85	Age
Education level	M = 6.27 SD = 1.37	2	9	What is your level of education (schooling)? [1] no schooling; [2] elementary school; [3] lower secondary; [4] upper secondary; [5] 2-year college, vocational, technical, associate degree; [6] university (4 years or more); [7] graduate school (master’s); [8] graduate school (doctoral)
Work term	M = 18.10 SD = 9.79	4	51	Work term
Seoul	Seoul = 727 Others = 2,774	0	1	Where is the location of the workplace? Note: Seoul is coded as 1
Permanent position	Regular = 2,783 Irregular = 718	0	1	Permanent/Temporary position [1] Permanent/[2] Temporary Note: The variable is coded as a binary variable; [1] is coded as 1, and [2] is coded as 0
Union	Union = 1,582 No union = 1,919	0	1	Does your workplace have a union? Note: Union is coded as 1
Job training	Training = 855 No training = 2,646	0	1	Have you ever received or are currently receiving vocational training? [1] yes, received/[2] yes, receiving/[3] never received vocational training Note: The variable is coded as a binary variable; [1] and [2] are coded as 1, and [3] is coded as 0
Work hour	M = 41.62 SD = 9.20	2	120	Regular weekly work hours

Measures

Dependent variables

There are two dependent variables that represent work motivation. The first is job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is measured by the average of three questionnaire items (α = .898) regarding how satisfied employees are with their job, a variable used by Agho, Mueller, and Price (1993). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of job satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, in which 1 represents very dissatisfied and 5 represents very satisfied. The three questions are (a) I am satisfied with my current job, (b) I enjoy this job, and (c) I feel this job to be personally rewarding. The second dependent variable is Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is evaluated by using the average of three questionnaire items (α=.874) regarding how workers feel about their organization, used by Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993). The three questions are (a) I take pride in being a part of this company, (b) I am glad to have joined this company, and (c) I hope to continue working at this company if other things remain the same.

Independent variables

The independent variables are derived from three dichotomous variables: whether employees have participated in child care leave, maternity leave, or have received child care subsidy. The KLIPS measures Maternity leave by asking the question, “Is the respondent entitled to receive maternity leave?” Child care leave uses the following question: “Is the respondent entitled to receive child care leave?” Last, Child care subsidy uses the question, “Is the respondent entitled to receive child care subsidy?” Respondents answered either yes or no, and the variable is coded as a binary variable; yes is coded as 1 and no as 0.

Control variables

We include several control variables that influence job satisfaction and organizational commitment in addition to demographic variables. Control variables including gender, work location, work position, union and job training are recorded as dichotomous variables. Female is a dichotomous variable, which is recorded as “0” for male and “1” for female respondents. The Seoul variable is 1 if the respondent works in Seoul. The permanent position variable is 0 if the respondent is in a temporary position and 1 if the respondent has a permanent position. The Union variable is 1 if the respondent’s workplace has a union. The Job training variable is 1 if the respondent has received vocational training. Age, work term, and salary are continuous variables related to both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. This study posits that work hour is related to work motivation.

Model

The KLIPS consists of longitudinal data from 2006 to 2013, from which this study examines the relationship between family-friendly policies and work motivation using panel data analysis with STATA 11. Panel data methods over a cross section are used to eliminate unobserved individual heterogeneity (Wooldridge, 2015). This study uses random effects model because the model includes time-invariant characteristics such as gender. We also assume that individual effect is not correlated with any regressor in the model (Wooldridge, 2015). After testing the Hausman specification, this study determines that a random effects model is more appropriate for this analysis (Wooldridge, 2015). According to the results of Wooldridge test to check serial correlation, we find that it is not serious in the model (Wooldridge, 2015). The results of the variance inflation factor (VIF), which all VIF are below 5, suggest that there is not a serious concern for multicollinearity. Year fixed effects are included to control for unobserved mean differences in work motivation across time. The random effects

\begin{array}{l} W o r k m o t i v a t i o n_{i t} = β_{0} + β_{1} M a t e r i t y l e a v e_{i t} + β_{2} C h i l d c a r e l e a v e_{i t} \\ + β_{3} C h i l d c a r e s u b s i d i e s_{i t} + β_{4} F e m a l e_{i t} + β_{5} Ln {(Salary)}_{i t} \\ + β_{6} A g e_{i t} + β_{7} E d u c a t i o n l e v e l_{i t} + β_{8} W o r k t e r m_{i t} \\ + β_{9} S e o u l_{i t} + β_{10} P e r m a n e n t_{i t} + β_{11} U n i o n_{i t} \\ + β_{12} J o b t r a i n i n g_{i t} + β_{13} W o r k h o u r s_{i t} + β_{14} Y e a r F i x e d + ε_{i t} \end{array}

Results

Table 2 estimates associations between the aggregated family-friendly policies and job satisfaction and organizational commitment. To examine the combined effects of family-friendly policies on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, family-friendly benefits variables are aggregated to create one variable.

Table 2.

Results of Random Effects Model on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, When Family-Friendly Policies Are Aggregated.

	Job satisfaction	Organizational commitment
	Model 1	Model 2
Family-friendly policies	0.058*** (0.012)	0.069*** (0.012)
Female	0.130*** (0.031)	0.141*** (0.030)
Log(Salary)	0.069*** (0.024)	0.082*** (0.024)
Age	0.007*** (0.002)	0.006*** (0.002)
Education level	0.065*** (0.013)	0.029** (0.013)
Work term	−0.001 (0.002)	−0.001 (0.002)
Seoul	−0.118*** (0.032)	−0.141*** (0.032)
Permanent position	0.105*** (0.039)	0.231*** (0.039)
Union	0.006 (0.023)	0.038* (0.023)
Job training	0.052** (0.023)	0.051** (0.022)
Work hour	−0.002 (0.001)	−0.003** (0.001)
Year fixed effect	Yes	Yes
_cons	2.365*** (0.202)	2.440*** (0.200)
N	3,211	3,211
R ²	0.106	0.143

Note. R² refers to R² (overall) for the random effects model. Standard errors are given in parenthesis; those in models refer to robust standard errors.

, **, and *** denote significance at risk levels .10, .05, and .01, respectively.

The results in Table 2 reveal that family-friendly policies are positively associated with both job satisfaction and organizational commitment at the 0.01 level. Hypotheses 1 and 2 predict that public employee participation in family-friendly policies is positively associated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Model 1 and Model 2 in Table 2 support both Hypotheses 1 and 2. In other words, such an increase in the number of family-friendly policies would lead to a boost in employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The coefficients indicate that 1 unit increase in the number of family-friendly policies results in a 0.06 increase in job satisfaction and a 0.07 increase in organizational commitment. Several other factors are statistically significant across models. For example, females report higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment than males. Salary, age, and education level show statistically positive relationships with both job satisfaction and organizational commitment across models. Employees who work in the Seoul metroplex are less likely to report low levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Moreover, permanent employees and those who have received job training are more likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

To investigate the effects of various family-friendly policies, Table 3 reports parameter estimates on the six random effects models delineated supra.

Table 3.

Results of Random Effects Model on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment.

	Job satisfaction			Organizational commitment
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Maternity leave	0.049* (0.025)			0.065*** (0.025)
Child care leave		0.045* (0.026)			0.082*** (0.025)
Child care subsidy			0.029 (0.040)			0.130*** (0.039)
Female	0.120*** (0.033)	0.122*** (0.034)	0.097** (0.040)	0.138*** (0.032)	0.140*** (0.032)	0.128*** (0.036)
Log(Salary)	0.060* (0.032)	0.068** (0.032)	0.029 (0.039)	0.094*** (0.031)	0.089*** (0.031)	0.037 (0.037)
Age	0.004* (0.002)	0.003 (0.002)	0.001 q(0.003)	0.001 (0.002)	0.001 (0.002)	−0.002 (0.003)
Education level	0.062*** (0.015)	0.060*** (0.015)	0.053*** (0.018)	0.027* (0.014)	0.023 (0.014)	0.023 (0.017)
Work term	0.002 (0.002)	0.002 (0.002)	0.005* (0.003)	0.002 (0.002)	0.001 (0.002)	0.005* (0.003)
Seoul	−0.110*** (0.034)	−0.084** (0.035)	−0.111*** (0.042)	−0.112*** (0.033)	−0.094*** (0.033)	−0.136*** (0.039)
Permanent position	0.076 (0.048)	0.065 (0.050)	0.118* (0.067)	0.211*** (0.047)	0.204*** (0.048)	0.257*** (0.064)
Union	0.020 (0.024)	0.011 (0.024)	0.037 (0.031)	0.052** (0.023)	0.048** (0.023)	0.074** (0.030)
Job training	0.037 (0.023)	0.040* (0.024)	0.061* (0.032)	0.033 (0.023)	0.029 (0.023)	0.072** (0.031)
Work hour	0.001 (0.002)	−0.001 (0.002)	−0.001 (0.002)	−0.002 (0.002)	−0.002 (0.002)	−0.002 (0.002)
Year fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
_cons	2.553*** (0.246)	2.559*** (0.253)	2.943*** (0.305)	2.593*** (0.240)	2.657*** (0.241)	3.085*** (0.287)
N	2,571	2,482	1,411	2,571	2,482	1,411
R ²	0.061	0.055	0.059	0.087	0.085	0.109

Note. R² refers to R² (overall) for the random effects model. Standard errors are given in parenthesis; those in models refer to robust standard errors.

, **, and *** denote significance at risk levels .10, .05, and .01, respectively.

Hypothesis 1a predicts that receiving maternity leave is positively associated with job satisfaction. Model 1 in Table 3 displays that receiving maternity leave shows a significant positive effect on job satisfaction (β = 0.049, p < .10). Hypothesis 1b aims to examine the relationship between receiving child care leave benefit and job satisfaction, and the results in Model 2 support Hypothesis 1b. The random effects model in Model 2 reveals that receiving child care leave benefit has a significant positive relationship with job satisfaction (β = 0.045, p < .10). Hypothesis 1c proposes that receiving child care subsidy is positively related to job satisfaction, but the random effects model in Model 3 shows that receiving child care subsidy does not have a significant positive relationship with job satisfaction. Consequently, the findings support Hypotheses 1a and 1b.

Hypothesis 2a examines the positive relationship between receiving maternity leave and organizational commitment, and the parameter estimate of child care leave in Model 4 supports Hypothesis 2a (β = 0.065, p < .01). Hypothesis 2b also predicts that receiving child care leave has a positive relationship with organizational commitment. The random effects model in Model 5 reveals that receiving child care leave shows a significant relationship with organizational commitment (β = 0.082, p < .01). Hypothesis 2c proposes that receiving child care subsidy has a positive association with organizational commitment, and the results in Model 6 supports Hypothesis 2c (β = 0.130, p < .01). The results of Table 3 show that the association between various family-friendly policies such as maternity leave, child care leave, and child care subsidy and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment are relatively strong.

Conclusion

The aim of this research is to analyze the effects of family-friendly policies on job satisfaction or organizational commitment using a sample consisting of South Korean public institutions. Whereas literature to date which examines the effects of family-friendly policies relies on cross-sectional data, this research contributes to previous studies by introducing a sample that uses longitudinal data. Based on social exchange theory, we hypothesize that family-friendly policies have positive effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The results show a significant positive relationship between family-friendly policies and work motivation, which supports this theory. The results, however, show that work motivation is not consistently affected by each family-friendly policy. More specifically, receiving maternity leave and child care leave benefits is positively associated with job satisfaction, whereas child care subsidy does not show a significant effect on job satisfaction. Furthermore, organizational commitment has a positive relationship with child care leave, maternity leave, and child care subsidy. The combined effects of family-friendly policies are also positively associated with both job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

This study has several implications regarding the relationships between job satisfaction/organizational commitment and family-friendly policies. First, the results from the panel model suggest that maternity leave and child care leave have positive effects on both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Employees are more likely to show higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment when receiving leave benefits. The results therefore imply that work motivation is affected by family-friendly leave policies. In the same line with Ezra and Deckman (1996) and Saltzstein et al. (2001), we find that employees are likely to have high levels of job satisfaction when they are able to implement child care leave policies. The results also indicate that implementation of child care policies has a positive impact on organizational commitment, validating Caillier (2013) who finds that employees are likely to have high levels of organizational commitment when they have been entitled to child care leave.

The second important finding of this research is that child care subsidy does not have a significant impact on job satisfaction. This may be because employees prefer to receive family-friendly leave benefits rather than to receive child care subsidy. Employee job satisfaction is likely to be more sensitive to time spent with children compared with receiving extra income. This implies that parents may prefer to spend more time with their family to achieve work–life balance. Practitioners and policy makers may therefore benefit from focusing more on expanding family-friendly leave policies rather than concentrating on increasing child care subsidies. Concerning organizational commitment, our finding suggests that child care subsidy increases organizational commitment. Child care subsidy has different effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. According to Moynihan and Pandey (2007), job satisfaction and organizational commitment are not always affected by the same factors. In line with Moynihan and Pandey (2007), our results show that child care subsidy increases organizational commitment even though it does not have a significant relationship with job satisfaction.

In addition, combined family-friendly policies have significant effects on both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. These results are, therefore, similar to Saltzstein et al. (2001) and Caillier (2012, 2013) in that work–life benefits are positively associated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. These results imply that employees who are entitled to receive family-friendly policies show higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment than those who are not entitled to receive these policies.

Notwithstanding these findings, there are several limitations in this study. First, we use the KLIPS data collected from the Korea Labor Institute, and, as a result, this study may not precisely measure each item based on theoretical constructs. Furthermore, this study is limited to examining the effects of child care leave, maternity leave, and child care subsidy on work motivation. Future studies may need to expand the scope of family-friendly policies and analyze factors such as telework, reduced work schedule, and on-site child care. Last, future research should incorporate a more in-depth interview to examine why employees regard child care leave policy to be more beneficial than other policies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This paper was supported by Wonkwang University in 2015.

Notes

Author Biographies

Kwang Bin Bae is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Administration at North Carolina Central University. His research interests are focused on human resource management, performance management, and nonprofit finance.

Gigeun Yang is a professor at the Department of Fire Service Administration, Wonkwang University. His research focuses on policy implementation, crisis and emergency management, disaster management, fire service administration. His research has appeared in journals such as Ocean & Coastal Management, Crisisonomy, and Korean Public Administration Review, as well as co-authored books including Introduction to Disaster Management.

References

Act on Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Reconciliation, Republic of Korea Law (2001, last amendment in 2011). Retrieved from http://www.moleg.go.kr/english/korLawEng?pstSeq=57940

Agho

A. O.

Mueller

C. W.

Price

J. L.

(1993). Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46, 1007-1027.

Ali

Kulik

C. T.

Metz

(2011). The gender diversity-performance relationship in services and manufacturing organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 1464-1485.

Allen

T. D.

(2001). Family-supportive work environments. The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 414-435.

Anderfuhren-Biget

Varone

Giauque

Ritz

(2010). Motivating employees of the public sector: Does public service motivation matter? International Public Management Journal, 13, 213-246.

Bae

K. B.

Goodman

(2014). The influence of family-friendly policies on turnover and performance in South Korea. Public Personnel Management, 43, 520-542.

Bae

K. B.

Kim

(2016). The impact of decoupling of telework on job satisfaction in U.S. Federal Agencies: Does gender matter? American Review of Public Administration, 46, 356-371.

Beauregard

T. A.

Henry

L. C.

(2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 9-22.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.

10.

Bozeman

D. P.

Perrewe

P. L.

(2001). The effect of item content overlap on organizational commitment questionnaire—Turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 161-173.

11.

Caillier

J. G.

(2012). The impact of teleworking on work motivation in a U.S. federal government agency. American Review of Public Administration, 42, 461-480.

12.

Caillier

J. G.

(2013). Satisfaction with work-life benefits and organizational commitment/job involvement: Is there a connection? Review of Public Personnel, 33, 340-364.

13.

Caillier

J. G.

(2016). Does satisfaction with family-friendly programs reduce turnover? A panel study conducted in U.S. Federal Agencies. Public Personnel Management, 45, 284-307.

14.

Chin

Lee

Son

Sung

(2012). Family policy in South Korea: Development, current status, and challenges. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 53-64.

15.

Clifton

T. J.

Shepard

(2004). Work and family programs and productivity: Estimates applying a production function model. International Journal of Manpower, 25, 714-728.

16.

Crosby

F. J.

(1991). Juggling: The unexpected advantages of combining work and home for women and their families. New York, NY: Macmillan.

17.

Ezra

Deckman

(1996). Balancing work and family responsibilities: Flextime and child care in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 56, 174-179.

18.

Gouldner

A. W.

(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

19.

Gould-Williams

Davies

(2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public Management Review, 7, 1-24.

20.

Graen

Cashman

J. F.

(1975). A role making model in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In Hunt

J. G.

Larsons

L. L.

(Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

21.

Haas

D. F.

Deseran

F. A.

(1981). Trust and symbolic exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 3-13.

22.

Huang

T. C.

Lawler

Lei

C. Y.

(2007). The effects of quality of work life on commitment and turnover intention. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35, 735-750.

23.

Kim

Wiggins

M. E.

(2011). Family-friendly human resource policy: Is it still working in the public sector? Public Administration Review, 71, 728-739.

24.

Labor Standards Act, Republic of Korea Law. (1997, last amendment in 2014). Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=46401

25.

Lee

S. Y.

Hong

J. H.

(2011). Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact on turnover and performance. Public Administration Review, 71, 870-879.

26.

Locke

E. A.

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

27.

Locke

E. A.

(1997). The motivation to work: What we know. In Maehr

Pintrich

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 375-412). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

28.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29, 388-403.

29.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

30.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

Smith

C. A.

(1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.

31.

Ministry of Employment and Labor. (2014). Employment and Labor Policy in Korea. Sejong-si, Korea: International Cooperation Bureau, Ministry of Employment and Labor. Retrieved from http://www.moel.go.kr/english/pas/pasPubli_view.jsp?idx=1084

32.

Moon

S. Y.

Roh

(2010). Balancing work and family in South Korea’s public organizations: Focusing on family-friendly policies in elementary school organizations. Public Personnel Management, 39, 117-131.

33.

Moorman

R. H.

Blakely

G. L.

Niehoff

B. P.

(1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351-357.

34.

Mowday

R. T.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

(1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

35.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

36.

Moynihan

Pandey

(2007). Finding workable levers over work motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational commitment. Administration & Society, 39, 803-832.

37.

Newman

Mathews

(1999). Federal family-friendly workplace policies: Barriers to effective implementation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 34-48.

38.

Perry-Smith

J. E.

Blum

T. C.

(2000). Work-family human resource bundles and perceived organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1107-1117.

39.

Riccucci

N. M.

(2002). Managing diversity in public sector workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

40.

Roberts

G. E.

Gianakis

J. A.

McCue

Wang

(2004). Traditional and family-friendly benefits practices in local governments: Results from a national survey. Public Personnel Management, 33, 307-330.

41.

Saltzstein

A. L.

Ting

Saltzstein

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, 452-467.

42.

Statistics Korea. (2013). Women’s lives through statistics in 2013. Retrieved from http://kostat.go.kr/portal/eng/pressReleases/13/2/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=307628&pageNo=&rowNum=10&amSeq=&sTarget=&sTxt=

43.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Available from http://www.census.gov/

44.

Wayne

S. J.

Shore

L. M.

Liden

R. C.

(1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82-111.

45.

Williams

L. J.

Hazer

J. T.

(1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: A reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 219-231.

46.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2015). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, Mason, OH: Thompson South Western.