DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2010.00739.
x
Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 135–143
The interaction effects of scheduling
control and work–life balance
programs on job satisfaction and
mental health ijsw_739 135..143
Jang SJ, Park R, Zippay A. The interaction effects of
scheduling control and work–life balance programs on job
satisfaction and mental health
Int J Soc Welfare 2011: 20: 135–143 © 2010 The Author(s),
International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell
Publishing Ltd and International Journal of Social Welfare.
The demands of balancing employment and family responsi-
bilities strain the health and welfare of many employees
worldwide, and social welfare policy analysts are increasingly
attending to the factors that can alleviate such stress. The
present study examined associations between the availability
of work–life balance programs, employees’ authority to
arrange their own work hours, job satisfaction, and mental
health among 1,293 employees in 50 companies in South
Korea. The study is unique in its use of multilevel analysis in
examining individual- and company-level variables. The
results add to the evidence regarding the positive relationship
between the availability of scheduling control and work–life
balance policies on the one hand, and job satisfaction and
mental wellbeing, on the other.
Introduction
As the number of dual-earner families has risen in
recent decades, there have been growing demands from
working parents, employers, and various advocacy
groups for policies that can support dual-earner house-
holds as they manage family life and employment
(Barnett, 2004; Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Duxbury &
Higgins, 1994; Gerson, 2002; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004;
Lewis, Noden, & Sarre, 2008). In recent years, policy
makers and employers have investigated and imple-
mented a variety of “work–life balance” (Kang, Bae, &
Jeong, 2006: 3) programs and strategies to ease work–
family stress and conflicts, including extended family
leave, job-sharing, and flexible work schedules (Bird,
2006; Gerson, 2002; Kang et al., 2006). Of particular
interest to researchers have been the effects of
employee scheduling control and flexible work sched-
ules on job satisfaction and wellbeing (Hill, Hawkins,
Ferris, & Weitzman, 2001; Saltzstein, Ting, &
Saltzstein, 2001; Scandura & Lankau, 1997).
The present study examined the associations
between employees’ ability to control their work sched-
ules, the availability of work–life balance programs, job
© 2010 The Author(s)
International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
I N T E R NAT I O NA L
J O U R NA L O F
SOCIAL WELFARE
ISSN 1369-6866
Soo Jung Jang1, Rhokeun Park2,
Allison Zippay3
1 School of Social Welfare, Dankook University, Republic of
Korea
2 College of Business Administration, Kwangwoon University,
Republic of Korea
3 School of Social Work, Rutgers University, New Jersey,
USA
Key words: scheduling control, work–life balance programs,
job satisfaction, mental health
Soo Jung Jang, School of Social Welfare, Dankook University,
Social Science Building, 144 San #29, Anseo-dong,
Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si, Chungnam, 330-714, Republic of
Korea
E-mail: sjjang@dankook.ac.kr
Accepted for publication January 13, 2010
satisfaction, and mental health among 1,293 employees
of 50 companies located in South Korea. The study is
unique in its use of multilevel analysis in examining
individual and company-level variables, and in its
investigation of the interaction effects of the indepen-
dent variables of scheduling control and the availability
of work–life balance programs. Most studies of work
control and work–life balance issues have involved
samples from the United States and Europe; this study
extended that research to include experiences among
South Korean workers. The results add to the evidence
regarding the association between the availability of
scheduling control and work–life balance programs, on
the one hand, and job satisfaction and mental health, on
the other, and build an empirical base for policies that
can potentially ease some job stress and enhance
welfare and wellbeing.
Background
Work–life balance is defined as an employee’s percep-
tion that multiple domains of personal time, family
care, and work are maintained and integrated with a
minimum of role conflict (Clark, 2000; Ungerson &
135
Jang et al.
Yeandle, 2005). Employer-sponsored work–life balance
or “family-friendly” policies vary widely among com-
panies and are intended to assist employees with work–
life integration (Galinsky, Friedman, & Hernandez,
1991). These include formal initiatives, such as on-site
or subsidized childcare, leave time for childbirth, or the
care of an ill or elderly family member, and flexible
work arrangements, such as job-sharing, flexible or
reduced hours, extended lunch hours, compressed work
weeks, and telecommuting (Bond, Flaxman, & Bunce,
2008; Galinsky et al., 1991). Some companies are also
characterized as having informal, family-friendly cul-
tures as, for example, when supervisors accommodate
an employee’s needs for flexible time to meet family
demands (such as an occasional late arrival, early
departure, or extended breaks or lunch) (Bond et al.,
2008; Schwartz, 1999).
The term “scheduling control” refers to an indi-
vidual employee’s ability or authority to arrange his or
her work hours (Krausz, Sagie, & Bidermann, 2000;
Melamed, Kushnir, & Meir, 1991). The term “flex-
time” may also be used to indicate that employees are
able to select their own hours (Galinsky et al., 1991).
These fall under the broader concept of “job control,”
which is the degree to which employees are provided
with the freedom and discretion to make decisions
across a number of dimensions concerning their work
(Dodd & Ganster, 1996; Shirom, Nirel, & Vinokur,
2006). According to Karasek’s (1979) seminal job-
strain model, low levels of decision latitude are related
to employee job stress and mental strain. Job control,
which includes scheduling control, can enhance satis-
faction and wellbeing by providing employees with the
jurisdiction to manage certain stressful job-related vari-
ables (Bond & Flaxman, 2006; Bond et al., 2008; Dodd
& Ganster, 1996; Schulz & Brown, 1995).
Work–life balance programs are one of the central
support mechanisms available to employees in manag-
ing work and family demands. Initiatives such as flex-
time, family leave, and job-sharing have become
popular through the years in the United States and in
European Union (EU) countries (Joshi et al., 2002).
Joshi et al. (2002) pointed out that while work–life
balance programs in the United States are often
intended to provide a competitive advantage to employ-
ers by keeping employees productive and healthy,
such programs in the EU countries are frequently
framed as a social responsibility to employees. Bird
(2006) suggested the idea of a work–life strategy that
would integrate competitive advantage and social
responsibility by attending to the intersections of the
organization’s and the individual’s work–life balance
objectives. In South Korea, work–life balance programs
have been increasingly adopted by large companies to
support and encourage family formation and family
care, and to counter trends toward low birth rates and
136 International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
reduced population (Kang et al., 2006). The Japanese
government has also developed work–life balance pro-
grams in response to declining birth rates (Kang et al.,
2006).
Scholars, including psychologists, sociologists,
organizational behavior researchers, management
researchers, and feminists, have examined the effects of
family-friendly policies and the relationship between
such policies and perceived work–life balance.
Saltzstein et al. (2001) analyzed survey data on a
sample of 32,103 US federal government employees.
They found that family-friendly policies were variously
effective in promoting employees’ loyalty and produc-
tivity and that perceived work–life balance was associ-
ated with job satisfaction. A positive relationship
between the availability of family-friendly workplace
policies and job satisfaction has been noted in numer-
ous workplace surveys (Brough, O’Driscoll, &
Kalliath, 2005; Gould & Fontenla, 2006; Saltzstein
et al., 2001). In a study of 196 working mothers from
the Midwestern United States, Estes (2004) found that
family-friendly workplace arrangements, including
schedule flexibility, reduced hours, and perceived social
support from supervisors, were associated with positive
parenting, including warmth and responsiveness toward
children, the quantity and quality of time spent with
children, and mothers’ psychological wellbeing. The
significance of informal supervisory support has been
noted in numerous studies. Interviewing 374 employed
parents with children under 18 from 83 US companies,
Secret and Sprang (2001) reported that perceived
supervisory support was significantly associated with
reduced role strain. Surveying 107 working mothers in
Switzerland, Seiger and Wiese (2009) have found that
social support, including that of work supervisors, is an
antecedent to reduced work–family conflict. And
drawing on a sample of 1,553 managers from five coun-
tries, Lapierre et al. (2008) have shown that employees’
perceptions of a supportive organizational culture are
associated with lower levels of work–family conflict,
which in turn positively affects job satisfaction, family
satisfaction, and overall life satisfaction.
On the other hand, other research has suggested that
formal employer-based family-friendly practices have
limited or no association with reported work–life
balance. Analyzing data from a nationally representa-
tive sample of 2,334 employed men and women in the
United States, Mennino, Rubin, and Brayfield (2005)
found that the availability of formal family-friendly
company policies were less effective in reducing stress
than an informal family-supportive workplace atmo-
sphere. Bruegel and Gray (2005) pointed out that
family-friendly policies could reduce fathers’ involve-
ment in their children’s care because it is female
employees who are most often encouraged to use the
policies. Some scholars suggest that family-friendly
© 2010 The Author(s)

policies, such as leave provisions, flexible work
scheduling, and childcare support, have sometimes
been adopted to maximize productivity, thereby
increasing employees’ work hours and exacerbating the
imbalance of work and family (Jacobs & Gerson, 2004;
Runte & Mills, 2004).
Researchers have noted that women are frequently
more vulnerable to the stresses of work–life imbalance.
Feminist scholars have pointed out that most women
still have primary responsibility for children and house-
hold chores, and that women often have “second shift”
duties at home and the workplace (Barnett, 2004;
Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Hochschild, 1989).
It has been noted that women are traditionally more
likely to identify themselves with the roles of mother,
wife, friend, and daughter, i.e. with caring and interper-
sonal relationships, whereas men more often identify
themselves primarily with career and work roles
(Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1982; Thoits, 1986). Fur-
thermore, it has been suggested that such role identifi-
cation coupled with greater family care responsibilities
exacerbates work–family stress and conflict among
working women (Barnett, 2004; Barnett & Hyde, 2001;
Keene & Quadagno, 2004; MacDonald, Phipps, &
Lethbridge, 2005; Milkie & Peltola, 1999; Rosenfield,
1989; Scandura & Lankau, 1997). In addition, many
employees, especially women, tend to choose to work
part-time to balance work–family responsibilities even
though part-time work tends to be less financially
rewarding and less secure than full-time work (Evans,
2002).
In recent years, flexible work schedules and indi-
vidual scheduling control have been given increased
emphasis in studies of work–life integration. Many
previous studies have found that flex-time may be
positively associated with increased job satisfaction
(Hill et al., 2001; Saltzstein et al., 2001; Scandura &
Lankau, 1997) and work–life balance (Jang, 2009;
Valcour, 2007). In particular, several studies have indi-
cated that individual scheduling control is one of
several effective strategies for reducing work–family
conflict and enhancing job satisfaction (Costa et al.,
2006; Halpern, 2005; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Krausz
et al., 2000; Scandura & Lankau, 1997) and health
and wellbeing (Costa et al., 2004; Costa et al., 2006).
Using a representative sample of working adults in the
United States (N = 3,552), Halpern (2005) analyzed the
relationship between stress, health, and job commit-
ment for employees with access to flex-time, and
found that employees with access to time-flexible work
policies reported less stress and a higher level of job
commitment (including the intention to remain at the
same job and loyalty toward the employer). Using
the 2000 European Union Survey on Working Condi-
tions, consisting of 21,703 workers in 15 EU countries,
Costa et al. (2004) examined individual scheduling
© 2010 The Author(s)
International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
Scheduling control
control, in which employees could determine their
own schedules compared with company-based and
employer-determined flex options such as compressed
work weeks and variable shifts. They found that
individual scheduling control alleviated the negative
effects of the company-based flexibility on perceived
health, safety, and social wellbeing. Using a sample
of 153 nurses in an Israeli hospital, Krausz et al.
(2000) found that scheduling control was more signifi-
cant in predicting job-related attitudes, such as job sat-
isfaction, organizational commitment, and burnout,
than the actual number of hours worked or the work
schedule.
Furthermore, some studies have suggested that flex-
time is negatively related to long hours of work and the
division of household labor (Wharton, 1994). Although
there are inconsistent claims about flexibility, many
studies have found positive effects on work–family
balance in multiple regression analyses using variables
such as schedule flexibility and reduced hours (Dalton
& Mesch, 1990; Estes, 2004; Ezra & Deckman, 1996;
Hill et al., 2001; Saltzstein et al., 2001; Scandura &
Lankau, 1997). While previous studies have focused on
the effects of scheduling control at only the individual
or the company level, the present study examined the
effects using multilevel data.
Other research studies of scheduling control or
schedule flexibility have shown inconsistent results
(Jang, 2009). Costa et al. (2004) distinguished between
flexibility at the individual level and flexibility at the
company level, and reported that individual flexibility
has a stronger effect on health and wellbeing. Costa
et al.’s (2004) study revealed that the effects differed
according to the level examined, which demonstrates
the importance of conducting a multilevel analysis.
According to the research findings of Scandura &
Lankau (1997), degree of job satisfaction varies by
perception of schedule flexibility. Halpern (2005)
pointed out that work–life balance programs have made
it easier for employees to control their work and family
responsibilities, and that scheduling control directly
affected the employee’s commitment, which is related
to job satisfaction and work-related stress. There are no
studies, however, that have examined the interaction
effects between work–life balance programs and sched-
uling control. The present study examined how sched-
uling control and the availability of work–life balance
programs are related to job satisfaction and the mental
wellbeing of employees.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1. Individual scheduling control will be
associated with a greater positive effect on mental
health when work–life balance programs are available
to employees than when they are not available.
137
Jang et al.
Figure 1. A Conceptual Model.
Hypothesis 2. Individual scheduling control will be
associated with more positive job satisfaction when
work–life balance programs are available to employees
than when they are not available.
Hypothesis 3. Job satisfaction will mediate the inter-
action effects of individual scheduling control and avail-
ability of work–life balance programs on mental health.
The conceptual model is illustrated in Figure 1, and
the model will be tested by conditions for the mediated
moderation model suggested by Muller, Judd, and
Yzerbyt (2005).
Method
Data and sample
To investigate the hypotheses of this article, we used a
survey of employee attitudes and behavior that was
developed by the lead authors. The survey included
closed-ended questions regarding employees’ percep-
tions as well as self-reports of job satisfaction, stress
and mental health, scheduling control, and availability
of work–life balance programs.
The data were collected from human resources man-
agers and employees in 50 companies located through-
out South Korea. These included private and public
sector companies with 20 or more employees. The
research team, which had targeted the inclusion of 50
companies in the study, contacted the human resources
managers of 97 companies to obtain the consent from
50 of them to participate. In-person survey administra-
tion was scheduled with managers who were willing to
participate. All surveys were administered by graduate
research assistants, and the surveys took an average of
30 minutes to complete. They followed human subjects
protocol and informed respondents that participation
was voluntary and confidential. The surveys were con-
ducted between August and December 2008.
The research team also targeted the inclusion of
surveys with 20 to 30 employees from each company.
In each company, one manager and a mean of 26
employees were surveyed, with a range of 13–36
employees surveyed for each company. Usable data
138 International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
were collected from 1,293 employees with a response
rate of 86 percent. The employees were selected by the
managers using nonprobability sampling. Managers
personally asked employees to participate, and these
names of potential respondents were then provided to
the graduate research assistants. To reduce bias derived
from the manager–employee relationship, the graduate
students distributed and collected the surveys. All
respondents filled out a self-administered, closed-ended
questionnaire.
The employee respondents within each company
held a variety of job positions. Forty-two percent held
managerial or administrative jobs, 13 percent produc-
tion or engineering jobs, 10 percent research and devel-
opment jobs, and 35 percent sales or service jobs.
Approximately three-quarters were employed full-time.
Sixty percent were male, and just under half were
married. Their average age was 34 years, and they
earned an average of about 27,000 dollars a year. Eigh-
teen percent of the respondents were union members.
The 50 companies sampled employed a mean of
2,274 employees, with a range of 20–35,700. Manufac-
turing companies comprised just over half, 52 percent,
of the sample, financial service companies 9 percent,
information technology (IT) companies 12 percent, and
other service companies 27 percent.
Measures
Scheduling control. The independent variable at the
individual level is scheduling control. This construct
was measured by the average of two items: “I can
determine my time schedules,” and “I can determine
my work schedules.” The two items were specifically
constructed to measure the perceptions of having
choice and influence on the timing and scheduling of
work. The items were a variant of the 5-item scale
previously used by Krausz et al. (2000). A 5-point
response scale ranged from “disagree strongly” (1) to
“agree strongly” (5) where higher values indicated that
employees could more easily control work. The coeffi-
cient alpha of these two items was 0.84.
Work–life balance programs. The independent vari-
able at company level is work–life balance programs. It
was measured by asking the managers the following
question: “Does your company have any program that
supports employees’ work–life balance?” This variable
was coded 1 if the manager reported that the company
has one, and 0 otherwise.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction measures the
degree to which respondents report being satisfied and
happy with their job. Job satisfaction was measured at
the individual level and was tested as a mediator. We
chose five items from the Job Descriptive Index (Smith,
© 2010 The Author(s)

Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) that are specifically related to
the job itself, excluding items related to satisfaction of
supervision, coworkers, promotion, and pay. The items
had a 5-point Likert-type scale and the responses
ranged from “strongly disagree (1)” to “strongly agree
(5).” Responses were summed and averaged into a com-
posite score with higher scores indicating greater job
satisfaction. The specific items were as follows: “I’m
satisfied with my job,” “I enjoy my current job,” “My
job gives me a sense of accomplishment,” “My job is
very boring,” and “I am always exhausted after my job.”
The last two items were reverse coded. The coefficient
alpha of these five items was 0.80.
Mental health. The dependent variable is mental
health, which was measured at the individual level. For
this construct, we chose five items from among the 12
items of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)
developed by Goldberg in the 1970s (see Goldberg &
Williams, 1988). The GHQ assesses the extent to which
respondents have experienced a list of somatic and
affective symptoms over the past three months. The
items have a 5-point Likert-type scale. The responses
ranged from “strongly disagree (1)” to “strongly agree
(5),” and were reversed and then summed and averaged
into a composite score. Higher scores indicate better
mental health. The construct consisted of the following
items: “I could not concentrate on whatever was occur-
ring around me,” “I could not sleep well because of
concerns,” “I’ve felt constantly under strain,” “I’ve
been feeling unhappy and depressed,” and “I have lost
my confidence.” The coefficient alpha of these five
items was 0.87.
Control variables. The control variables at the indi-
vidual level include occupation, job status, gender,
marital status, wages, and union membership. Occupa-
tion was divided into four categories: managerial or
administrative, production or engineering, research and
development, sales or service jobs. Job status was
coded 1 when the employee had a full-time job, and 0
when he or she had a part-time job. Male employees,
union members, and employees who were married or
living with a partner were coded 1, and all others coded
0. Wages were coded into one of 11 categories from
under 10,000 dollars to more than 100,000 dollars per
year. Control variables at the company level were com-
posed of company size and industry. The company size
was measured by the number of employees, and the
companies were categorized into four industries: manu-
facturing, financial services, IT, and other services.
Analytic strategy
We examined the dimensionality of the three constructs
(scheduling control, job satisfaction, and mental
© 2010 The Author(s)
International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
Scheduling control
health), which consist of multiple items, by conducting
a principal components factor analysis with varimax
rotation. We obtained a 3-factor solution in which all
the items had high loadings (median loading = 0.84) on
each factor, which explained 68.2 percent of the vari-
ance. We then conducted confirmatory factor analysis
to evaluate discriminant validity using LISREL 8.50,
testing 1-factor, 2-factor, and 3-factor models. The
3-factor model fit the data best (Dc2 = 3,739, Ddf = 3,
p < .001; Dc2 = 4,602, Ddf = 2, p < .001, respectively).
Since employees are nested within companies, we
employed hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992). When a data set is multilevel, ordi-
nary least squares regression may lead to an overesti-
mation of the parameters. HLM overcomes this
problem by simultaneously estimating equations for
both individual and company effects (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002).
We tested a null model in order to investigate the
appropriateness of multilevel analysis. This model pro-
vides answers about whether the dependent variable
and the mediator vary across companies by allowing us
to partition the total variance in the variables into
within- and between-company components. The intra-
class correlations indicated that variances of 10 percent
of mental health and of 8 percent of job satisfaction
resided between companies. These variances between
companies were significant and nontrivial, thereby
justifying multilevel analysis.
The three hypotheses of this article were tested using
the mediated moderation model proposed by Muller
et al. (2005). They suggested three conditions to dem-
onstrate mediated moderation: (i) the magnitude of
overall treatment effect on the outcome should depend
on the moderator; (ii) the effect of the treatment on
the mediator should depend on the moderator, and at
the same time the mediator should have an effect on the
outcome; (iii) the moderation of the residual direct
effect of the treatment should be reduced compared
with the moderation of the overall treatment effect.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations
of variables
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and cor-
relations of measures. As shown in the table, the mag-
nitude of the correlations between the variables ranged
from low to moderate.
Hierarchical linear model
Table 2 shows the results for our models, which contain
both employee- and company-level predictors to
examine the interaction of the variables.
139
 Jang et al.

The first equation examined the cross-level interac-

0.42
(17) tion effect between scheduling control and the presence
of work–life balance programs. The interaction term

-0.02
-0.01
(16)

had a significant and positive association with mental

health (p < .05). That is, the effect of scheduling control

0.24
-0.11
-0.07
on mental health was greater when work–life balance
(15)

programs were available than when they were not,

which supports Hypothesis 1. The second equation

-0.20
-0.22
0.02
-0.01
(14)

investigated the cross-level interaction effect between

scheduling control and work–life balance programs on

-0.12
-0.19
-0.02
0.09
-0.02
job satisfaction. The interaction term had a significant
(13)

and positive association with job satisfaction (p < .05).

-0.36 In other words, the effect of scheduling control on job
-0.38
-0.63
-0.06
0.03
0.08
(12)

satisfaction was greater when work–life balance pro-

grams were available than when they were not, which is
0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.06
0.16
-0.06
0.22
consistent with Hypothesis 2. At the same time, job
(11)

satisfaction had a significant association with mental

health in the last equation. Finally, the interaction term
0.05
-0.11
0.02

0.10
-0.08
0.03
-0.08
-0.11
(10)

between scheduling control and work–life balance pro-

grams was reduced when job satisfaction was con-
trolled (equation 3 compared with equation 1). A Sobel
0.26

0.02
0.15
0.19
0.10
0.01
-0.30
-0.07
0.19

test confirmed that the reduction was significant (p <

(9)

.05). These results support Hypothesis 3. These find-

0.42
0.12

0.04
0.11
-0.05
0.09
0.03
-0.03
0.03
0.17

ings satisfy the three conditions for the mediated mod-

(8)

eration that Muller et al. (2005) proposed and therefore

support the three hypotheses of this article. Since the
0.18
0.29
0.08
0.02
0.27

-0.12
0.15
0.15
-0.15
0.11
-0.28

b All values greater than 0.033 and 0.043 are significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively.
(7)

interaction term between scheduling control and work–

life balance programs is no longer significant in the last
0.34
0.11
0.32
0.15

0.10
0.12
0.27
-0.28
0.04
-0.14
-0.05
0.08

equation, job satisfaction plays a role as a full mediator.

(6)

The results of control variables at the individual

level indicated that male employees were significantly
-0.29
-0.18
0.06
-0.13

0.13
-0.04

-0.02
-0.06
-0.16
-0.40
0.23
-0.13
0.39

more likely to report positive job satisfaction and

(5)

mental health, as were full-time employees. Marital

-0.22
0.10
0.10
-0.07
0.04

0.00
-0.03
0.00
0.07
-0.10
0.24
-0.18
-0.14
0.06

status, wages, and union membership were not signifi-

(4)

cantly related to job satisfaction and mental health.

Employees in production or engineering occupations
-0.12
-0.29
0.00
0.16
0.11
-0.04
0.13
-0.08
0.24

-0.10
0.00
0.14
-0.13
0.00
-0.18

were more likely to report lower job satisfaction and

(3)

higher mental health than employees in other occupa-

0.02
-0.35
-0.27
-0.63
0.22
0.01
-0.09
0.13
-0.03
0.21

-0.01
-0.04
0.18
-0.07
-0.01
-0.15

tions. The results of control variables at the company

(2)

level indicated that employees in financial service

industries were more likely to report higher job satis-
-0.01
-0.12
0.05
0.06
-0.12
0.02
0.10

0.00
0.10

0.24
0.05
-0.11
0.05
-0.04
0.16
0.05
-0.09

faction than employees in other service industries.

(1)

Company size was not significantly associated with job

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations.

satisfaction and mental health.

0.92
0.49
0.33
0.31
0.48
0.44
0.49
0.50

0.50
1.62

0.65
0.77
0.39
6,300
0.50
0.29
0.33
0.44
SD

The interaction effects of scheduling control and

work–life balance programs are illustrated visually by
2.69
0.42
0.13
0.10
0.35
0.74
0.60
0.48

0.55
3.71

3.26
3.65
0.18
2,443
0.52
0.09
0.12
0.27
Mean

Figure 2, based on the first and second equations of

Table 2.
Graph (a) presents the moderating effects of work–
Managerial or administrative

Research and development

IT, information technology.

Production or engineering

life balance programs in the process in which schedul-

ing control is associated with mental health. Scheduling
Scheduling control

control was divided into two groups: those with low

Balance program
Sales or service

Manufacturing

(mean - 1 SD) and those with high (mean + 1 SD)

Mental health

a n = 1,057.
Satisfaction

scheduling control. When work–life balance programs

Marriage
Full-time

Services
Finance
Gender

Wages

were not available, the fact that employees could

Union
Size

control the work schedule was not helpful to their

IT

© 2010 The Author(s)

140 International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
 Scheduling control

Table 2. The effects of scheduling control on job satisfaction and mental health.

Health Satisfaction Health

Constant 3.507 (0.150)** 3.113 (0.142)** 3.605 (0.138)**

Level-1
Scheduling control -0.045 (0.096) 0.072 (0.039)† -0.096 (0.095)
Managerial or administrative -0.139 (0.080)† 0.084 (0.112)† -0.216 (0.072)**
Research or development -0.105 (0.092) 0.196 (0.123) -0.250 (0.079)**
Sales or service -0.150 (0.114) 0.100 (0.075) -0.232 (0.101)*
Full-time 0.186 (0.097)† 0.106 (0.056)† 0.135 (0.096)
Gender 0.219 (0.056)** 0.142 (0.055)* 0.139 (0.052)**
Marriage -0.039 (0.050) 0.086 (0.056) -0.078 (0.055)
Wages -0.028 (0.024) 0.030 (0.021) -0.043 (0.021)*
Union 0.088 (0.087) 0.046 (0.075) 0.099 (0.085)
Satisfaction 0.493 (0.058)**
Level-2
Size -0.000 (0.000) -0.000 (0.000) -0.000 (0.000)
Manufacturing -0.025 (0.113) -0.177 (0.086)* 0.067 (0.108)
Information technology -0.017 (0.182) -0.171 (0.098)† 0.075 (0.190)
Other service -0.097 (0.146) -0.213 (0.110)† 0.020 (0.138)
Balance program 0.087 (0.092) 0.031 (0.064) 0.074 (0.083)
Scheduling ¥ balance 0.212 (0.102)* 0.129 (0.066)* 0.156 (0.101)
Satisfaction ¥ balance 0.032 (0.085)
Deviance 2,455.5 1,975.4 2,262.5

a Parentheses: robust standard errors.

b † p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

(a) which scheduling control affects job satisfaction. While

Mental health scheduling control was associated with job satisfaction
3.8 in both cases, the effect of such scheduling control on
job satisfaction was greater when work–life balance
3.7
programs were provided than when they were not.
No work–life balance
3.6
Work–life balance program
Discussion
3.5
The demands of balancing employment and family
3.4
0 1
responsibilities strain the health and welfare of many
Scheduling control
employees, and social welfare policy analysts are
increasingly attending to the factors that can alleviate
(b) such stress. The results of the present study indicate that
Job satisfaction among this sample of employees, the interaction effects
3.4
of scheduling control and the availability of work–life
balance programs are positively associated with self-
3.3 reported job satisfaction and mental wellbeing. The
No work–life balance
effects of scheduling control on self-reported job satis-
Work–life balance program
3.2 faction and mental wellbeing are stronger when
employer work–life balance programs are available,
3.1 and job satisfaction mediates the effects on mental
0 1 wellbeing. The findings suggest that companies in
Scheduling control which work–life balance programs are available may be
perceived by employees as more supportive and family-
Figure 2. The moderating effects of work–life balance programs.
friendly, and that those perceptions, in conjunction
with employer practices, affect job satisfaction, which
promotes mental wellbeing.
mental health at all. On the other hand, when those Many previous studies have focused on the effects of
programs were available to employees, the more they work–life balance programs and scheduling control at
controlled their schedule, the higher was the level of only the individual level or the company level. As men-
their mental health. Graph (b) presents the moderating tioned earlier, the effects of scheduling control and
effects of work–life balance programs in the process in work–life balance programs are inconsistent when the

© 2010 The Author(s)

International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare 141
Jang et al.
variables are examined at each level alone. The inter-
action effects have been missed in previous studies, so
that the effects might be underestimated or overesti-
mated. Another new finding of the present study is that
job satisfaction plays a role as a mediator. Previous
studies have established job satisfaction as an outcome
variable of work–life balance programs or scheduling
control. This study suggests that job satisfaction medi-
ates the interaction effect of scheduling control and
work–life balance on mental health. The effect of
gender in the present study is consistent with previous
research, with women reporting significantly less job
satisfaction and more mental stress than men.
The present study contributes to the literature by
reexamining the effects of the availability of work–life
balance programs and scheduling control through inter-
action tests using multilevel data. The findings suggest
that future research could further explore the process
and effects of scheduling control options and work–life
balance programming on various aspects of employee
wellbeing.
Limitations
The data set used for this study is limited by its self-
report survey design. The components of work–life
balance programs in South Korea vary in each
company, and future investigations should explore in
more detail the nature and composition of work–life
balance programs and their effects on job satisfaction
and mental health. In addition, measures of perception
variables may be subject to various sources of measure-
ment error, including culture. First, the correlations
between those variables may have been overestimated,
because scheduling control, job satisfaction, and
mental health were measured via self-reports by
employees. However, given that there is evidence of
discriminant validity between them, self-report bias
does not appear to be a serious problem with the present
results. Second, since this study used a cross-sectional
data set, it cannot confirm cause and effect. A longitu-
dinal or experimental study is needed to test causality
between those variables. Finally, the sample of this
study was collected using nonprobability sampling, and
the findings are specific to these 1,293 respondents
from 50 companies in South Korea.
Conclusions
The results point at a strong moderating effect of the
availability of work–life balance programs in the rela-
tionship between scheduling control and job satisfac-
tion, and between scheduling control and mental health,
among the respondents in this sample. Although much
has been examined about work–life balance programs,
scholars have paid most attention to direct effects of the
142 International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
programs alone, while overlooking their moderating
role. Also, most research on work–life balance pro-
grams has been conducted in European countries and
the United States, while this study extends the research
on scheduling control, work–life balance programs, and
wellbeing to South Korea. The findings add to an
empirical base to further an understanding of the ways
in which employment policies can potentially ease
some job stress and enhance welfare and wellbeing.
Acknowledgement
The present research was conducted by the research
fund of Dankook University in 2009.
References
Barnett RC (2004). Women and Multiple Roles: Myths and
Reality. Harvard Review Psychiatry 12(3): 158–164.
Barnett RC, Hyde JS (2001). Women, Men, Work and Family:
An Expansionist Theory. The American Psychologist 56(10):
781–796.
Bird J (2006). Work–Life Balance: Doing It Right and Avoiding
the Pitfalls. Employment Relations Today 33(3): 21–30.
Bond FW, Flaxman PE (2006). The Ability of Psychological
Flexibility and Job Control to Predict Learning, Job Perfor-
mance, and Mental Health. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior Management 26(1&2): 113–130.
Bond FW, Flaxman PE, Bunce D (2008). The Influence of Psy-
chological Flexibility on Work Redesign: Mediated Modera-
tion of a Work Reorganization Intervention. Journal of
Applied Psychology 93(3): 645–654.
Brough P, O’Driscoll MP, Kalliath TJ (2005). The Ability of
“Family Friendly” Organizational Resources to Predict
Work–Family Conflict and Job and Family Satisfaction.
Stress and Health 21: 223–234.
Bruegel I, Gray A (2005). Mens’ Conditions of Employment and
the Division of Childcare between Parents. In: Houston DM,
ed. Work–Life Balance in the 21st Century, pp. 147–169.
Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.
Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (1992). Hierarchical Linear Models.
Newbury Park, CA, Sage.
Chodorow N (1978). The Reproduction of Mothering: Psycho-
analysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California Press.
Clark SC (2000). Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of
Work/Family Balance. Human Relations 53(6): 747–770.
Costa G., Åkerstedt T, Nachreiner F, Baltieri F, Carvalhais J,
Folkard S, Dresen MF, Gadbois C, Gartner J, Sukalo HG,
Härmä M, Kandolin I, Sartori S, Silverio J (2004). Flexible
Working Hours, Health, and Well-Being in Europe: Some
Considerations from a SALTSA Project. Chronobiology
International 21(6): 831–844.
Costa G, Sartori S, Åkerstedt T (2006). Influence of Flexibility
and Variability of Working Hours on Health and Well-Being.
Chronobiology International 23(6): 1125–1137.
Dalton DR, Mesch DJ (1990). The Impact of Flexible Schedul-
ing on Employee Attendance and Turnover. Administrative
Science Quarterly 35(2): 370–387.
Dodd NG., Ganster DC (1996). The Interactive Effects of
Variety, Autonomy, and Feedback on Attitudes and Perfor-
mance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17: 329–347.
Duxbury L, Higgins C (1994). Interference between Work and
Family: A Status Report on Dual-Career and Dual-Earner
Mothers and Fathers. Women in the Workplace and Employee
Assistance Programs, pp. 55–80.
© 2010 The Author(s)

Estes SB (2004). How Are Family-Responsive Workplace
Arrangements Family Friendly? Employer Accommodations,
Parenting, and Children’s Socioemotional Well-Being. The
Sociological Quarterly 45(4): 637–661.
Evans JM (2002). Work/Family Reconciliation, Gender Wage
Equity and Occupational Segregation: The Role of Firms and
Public Policy. Canadian Public Policy 18(S2): 187–216.
Ezra M, Deckman M (1996). Balancing Work and Family
Responsibilities: Flextime and Childcare in the Federal Gov-
ernment. Public Administration Review 56(2): 174–176.
Galinsky E, Friedman DE, Hernandez CA (1991). The Corpo-
rate Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs. New York,
Families and Work Institute.
Gerson K (2002). Moral Dilemmas, Moral Strategies, and the
Transformation of Gender: Lessons from Two Generations of
Work and Family Change. Gender & Society 16(1): 8–28.
Gilligan C (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory
and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA, Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Goldberg DP, Williams PA (1988). User’s Guide to the GHQ.
Windsor, NFER Nelson.
Gould D, Fontenla M (2006). Commitment to Nursing: Results
of a Qualitative Interview Study. Journal of Nursing Man-
agement 14: 213–221.
Halpern DF (2005). How Time-Flexible Work Policies can
Reduce Stress, Improve Health, and Save Time. Stress and
Health 21(3): 157–168.
Hill EJ, Hawkins AJ, Ferris M, Weitzman M (2001). Finding an
Extra Day a Week: The Positive Influence of Perceived Job
Flexibility on Work and Family Life Balance. Family Rela-
tions 50(1): 49–58.
Hochschild A (1989). The Second Shift: Working Parents and the
Revolution at Home. New York, Viking Press.
Jacobs JA, Gerson K (2004). The Time Divide: Work, Family, and
Gender Inequality. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University
Press.
Jang SJ (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.
Joshi S, Leichne J, Melanson K, Pruna C, Sager N, Story CJ,
Williams K (2002). Work–Life Balance: A Case of Social
Responsibility or Competitive Advantage? Human Resources
Department, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Kang W, Bae N, Jeong J (2006). Work–Life Balance. CEO
Information.
Karasek RA (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and
Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative
Science Quarterly 24: 285–308.
Keene JR, Quadagno J (2004). Predictors of Perceived Work-
Family Balance: Gender Difference or Gender Similarity?
Sociological Perspectives 47(1): 1–23.
Krausz M, Sagie A, Bidermann Y (2000). Actual and Preferred
Work Schedule and Scheduling Control as Determinants of
Job-Related Attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 56:
1–11.
Lapierre LM, Spector PE, Allen TD, Poelmans S, Cooper CL,
O’Driscoll MP, Sanchez JI, Brough P, Kinnunen U (2008).
Family-Supportive Organization Perceptions, Multiple
Dimensions of Work-Family Conflict, and Employee Satis-
faction: A Test of Model Across Five Samples. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 73: 92–106.
Lewis J, Noden P, Sarre S (2008). Parents’ Working Hours:
Adolescent Children’s Views and Experiences. Children &
Society 22(6): 429–439.
© 2010 The Author(s)
International Journal of Social Welfare © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and the International Journal of Social Welfare
Scheduling control
MacDonald M, Phipps S, Lethbridge L (2005). Taking Its Toll:
The Influence of Paid and Unpaid Work on Women’s Well-
Being. Feminist Economics 11(1): 63–94.
Melamed S, Kushnir T, Meir EI (1991). Attenuating the Impact
of Job Demands: Additive and Interactive Effects of Per-
ceived Control and Social Support. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 39: 40–53.
Mennino SF, Rubin BA, Brayfield A (2005). Home-to-Job and
Job-to-Home Spillover: The Impact of Company Policies and
Workplace Culture. The Sociological Quarterly 46(1): 107–
135.
Milkie MA, Peltola P (1999). Playing All the Roles: Gender and
the Work-Family Balancing Act. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 61(2): 476–490.
Muller D, Judd CM, Yzerbyt VY (2005). When Moderation Is
Mediated and Mediation Is Moderated. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology 89(6): 852–863.
Raudenbush S, Bryk AS (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models:
Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage.
Rosenfield S (1989). The Effects of Women’s Employment: Per-
sonal Control and Sex Differences in Mental Health. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior 30(1): 77–91.
Runte M, Mills AJ (2004). Paying the Toll: A Feminist Post-
Structural Critique of the Discourse Bridging Work and
Family. Culture and Organization 10(3): 237–249.
Saltzstein AL, Ting Y, Saltzstein GH (2001). Work-Family
Balance and Job Satisfaction: The Impact of Family-Friendly
Policies on Attitudes of Federal Government Employees.
Public Administration Review 61(4): 452–467.
Scandura TA, Lankau MJ (1997). Relationships of Gender,
Family Responsibility and Flexible Work Hours to organiza-
tional Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior 18: 377–391.
Schulz RG Jr, Brown R (1995). Organization, Management, and
Client Effects on Staff Burnout. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 36: 333–345.
Schwartz N (1999). Self-Reports: How the Questions Shape the
Answers. American Psychologist 54(2): 93–105.
Secret M, Sprang G. (2001). The Effect of Family-Friendly
Workplace Environment on Work-Family Stress of Employed
Parents. Journal of Social Service Research 28(2): 21–45.
Seiger CP, Wiese BS (2009). Social Support from Work
and Family Domains as an Antecedent or Moderator of
Work–Family Conflicts? Journal of Vocational Behavior 75:
26–37.
Shirom A, Nirel N, Vinokur AD (2006). Overload, Autonomy,
and Burnout as Predictors of Physicians. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology 11(4): 328–342.
Smith PC, Kendall LM, Hulin CL (1969). Measurement of Sat-
isfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago, Rand McNally.
Thoits PA (1986). Multiple Identities: Examining Gender and
Marital Status Differences in Distress. American Sociologi-
cal Review 51(April): 259–272.
Ungerson C, Yeandle, S (2005). Care Workers and Work-Life
Balance: The Example of Domiciliary Careworkers. In:
Hounston DM, ed. Work-Life Balance in the 21st Century,
pp. 246–262. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.
Valcour M (2007). Work-Based Resources as Moderators of the
Relationship between Work Hours and Satisfaction with
Work-Family Balance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(6):
1512–1523.
Wharton C (1994). Finding Time for the “Second Shift”: The
Impact of Flexible Work Schedules on Women’s Double
Days. Gender & Society 8(2): 189–205.
143