Journal of Vocational Behavior 54, 392– 415 (1999)

Article ID jvbe.1998.1681, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

When Work–Family Benefits Are Not Enough: The Influence

of Work–Family Culture on Benefit Utilization,
Organizational Attachment, and Work–Family Conflict

Cynthia A. Thompson

Baruch College, City University of New York

Laura L. Beauvais

University of Rhode Island

and

Karen S. Lyness

Baruch College, City University of New York

We developed a measure of work–family culture (i.e., the shared assumptions, beliefs,

and values regarding the extent to which an organization supports and values the
integration of employees’ work and family lives) and examined its relationship to
work–family benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–family conflict.
Using survey data from 276 managers and professionals, we identified three dimensions
of work–family culture: managerial support for work–family balance, career conse-
quences associated with utilizing work–family benefits, and organizational time expecta-
tions that may interfere with family responsibilities. As predicted, perceptions of a
supportive work–family culture were related to employees’ use of work–family benefits.
Both work–family benefit availability and supportive work–family culture were positively
related to affective commitment and negatively related to work–family conflict and
intentions to leave the organization. In addition, the three culture dimensions were found
to have unique relationships with these behaviors and attitudes. © 1999 Academic Press

All authors contributed equally to the preparation of this manuscript. An earlier version of this
paper was presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, August 1997.
We thank Helen Carter for her help with the earlier version. We also thank Associate Editor Joyce
Russell and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions. Special thanks to Jeff
Greenhaus, Richard Kopelman, Sharon Lobel, and Saroj Parasuraman for their help in the develop-
ment of our work–family culture scale.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Cynthia Thompson, Department of Management,
Box F-1831, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College/CUNY, 17 Lexington Avenue, New York,
NY 10010. E-mail: ThompCUNY@aol.com.

392
0001-8791/99 $30.00
Copyright © 1999 by Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 393

Employees today are offered a range of work–family benefits and programs,

such as job sharing, telecommuting, job-protected parental leave, part-time
return-to-work options, flextime, resource and referral services, on-site child
care, and support groups for working parents (Lobel & Kossek, 1996; Mitchell,
1997). Although research suggests that these benefits can reduce the stress
associated with balancing multiple roles (Thomas & Ganster, 1995), there is also
evidence that many employees are not taking advantage of these benefits. A study
of 80 major U.S. corporations found, for example, that less than 2% of the
employees participated in work–family programs (Galinsky, Bond, & Friedman,
1993). Also, a survey of female university faculty revealed that 77% thought that
taking maternity leave would hurt them professionally, and only 30% of those
who had given birth reported that they had taken the full leave allowed by
university policy (Finkel, Olswang, & She, 1994). In addition, engineers at a
Fortune 100 company were reluctant to take advantage of work–family benefits
due to fears of negative career consequences (Perlow, 1995). While some
employers may not understand that this lack of participation is a problem, the
increased stress, fatigue, and illness associated with imbalance affect individual
as well as organizational effectiveness and well-being (Bailyn, 1993; Kofodimos,
1993). By not fostering a more balanced work–family life for employees,
organizations are contributing to tensions in employees’ personal lives, the
repercussions of which affect employees’ ability to concentrate and be produc-
tive and creative on the job.
After reviewing research on workplace family policy, Starrels (1992) con-
cluded that “corporate culture may either advance or thwart development and
effectiveness of work–family programs” (p. 261). For example, even where
formal work–family policies and programs are in place, managers may subvert
them by refusing to allow their employees to participate or by applying the
policies unevenly. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many employees are reluc-
tant to participate in work–family programs, such as flexible work schedules,
because they fear their careers will suffer (Hammonds, 1997; Morris, 1997).
Also, in some organizational cultures the amount of time spent at work is
interpreted as an indication of employees’ contributions and career dedication
(Lewis & Taylor, 1996; Perlow, 1995; Starrels, 1992), and these norms may
make employees reluctant to take time off or to reduce their work hours to attend
to family responsibilities. Thus, despite formal policies and programs designed to
help employees balance work and family, unsupportive work cultures may
undermine the programs’ effectiveness (Thompson, Thomas, & Maier, 1992).
The purpose of this study was to learn more about the role of organizational
culture in facilitating or impeding employees’ efforts to balance work and family
responsibilities. We addressed this issue by (1) developing a measure of work–
family culture; (2) examining the correlates of work–family benefit utilization,
including work–family culture; and (3) determining whether work–family benefit
availability and supportive work–family culture were related to employees’
behaviors and attitudes. The research was guided by the following questions:
394 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

Which groups of employees are more likely to utilize work–family benefits? Are
employees’ decisions to take advantage of work–family benefits related to
perceptions of a supportive organizational culture for balancing work and fam-
ily? Are the availability of work–family benefits and supportive work–family
cultures related to employees’ attachment to their organizations and work–family
conflict?

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Work–Family Culture
We defined work–family culture as the shared assumptions, beliefs, and values
regarding the extent to which an organization supports and values the integration
of employees’ work and family lives. This definition is consistent with both
Schein’s (1985) and Denison’s (1996) conceptualizations of organizational cul-
ture as “the deep structure of organizations, which is rooted in values, beliefs, and
assumptions held by organizational members” (Denison, 1996, p. 624). Just as
other aspects of an organization’s culture have been shown to influence employee
attitudes and behavior (e.g., Trice & Beyer, 1993), employees’ perceptions about
the work–family culture in their organizations would be expected to influence
their attitudes about the organization as well as decisions about whether or not to
use work–family benefits.
The literature suggests that there are at least three possible components of
work–family culture. The first component concerns organizational time demands
or expectations that employees prioritize work above family. Norms about the
number of hours employees are expected to work and norms about employees’
use of time (e.g., whether or not employees are expected to take work home) are
important aspects of organizational culture that may affect employees’ behavior
(Bailyn, 1993; Schriber & Gutek, 1987). As Bailyn (1993) noted, working long
hours often serves as a prime indicator of commitment and productivity, but it
clearly hinders the ability of employees to meet conflicting responsibilities. In
their theoretical model of work–nonwork stress, Greenhaus and Beutell (1985)
identified time-based conflict as a major source of work–family conflict. Time-
based conflict occurs when time pressures in one role (e.g., work) make it
difficult to comply with expectations in the other role (e.g., family). Frone,
Yardley, and Markel (1997) also suggested that work time commitment is a
predictor of work–family conflict in their integrative model of the work–family
interface. Empirical support for these ideas is provided by Frone et al. (1997) and
by Parasuraman, Purohit, Godshalk, and Beutell (1996), suggesting that organi-
zational expectations that employees work long hours are likely to interfere with
family responsibilities.
Another component of work–family culture suggested by the literature con-
cerns perceived negative career consequences associated with utilizing work–
family benefits or devoting time to family responsibilities. Negative spillover
models of the work–family interface (see Lambert, 1990, for a review of these
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 395

models) imply that family demands, responsibilities, attitudes, and emotions may
“spill over” into the workplace, causing difficulties on the job. Bailyn (1993)
argued that because of organizational norms for visibility, employees put their
careers at risk when they participate in work–family programs that make them
less visible at work (e.g., telecommuting). The underlying cultural assumption,
according to Perlow (1995), is that an employee’s presence at work, or what is
sometimes called “face time,” is a direct indicator of his or her contribution and
commitment to work. Participating in work–family programs may undermine an
employee’s ability to show total commitment to the organization, resulting in
negative performance evaluations (Perlow, 1995) and jeopardizing the employ-
ee’s future wage increases or promotions (Glass & Fujimoto, 1995).
The empirical literature supports the idea that there may be negative career
consequences for utilizing work–family benefits (Finkel et al., 1994; Lewis &
Taylor, 1996; Perlow, 1995). In fact, managerial advancement was shown to be
associated with working long hours (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995),
and taking family-related leaves of absence was negatively related to subsequent
performance ratings, promotions, and size of salary increases for female man-
agers (Judiesch & Lyness, in press). As Perlow (1995) explained, work–family
policies and programs may create new ways of working, but employees who
utilize these programs will be negatively affected if the culture still rewards the
old ways of working.
A third component of work–family culture concerns managerial support and
sensitivity to employees’ family responsibilities. Work stress researchers have
long recognized that using social support as a coping mechanism is an important
way to manage various life stressors (Beehr, 1985; Greenhaus & Parasuraman,
1986). Research has shown that employees whose supervisors supported their
efforts to balance work and family were less likely to experience work–family
conflict (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Supervisors play a key role in the effective-
ness of work–family policies and programs because they may encourage em-
ployees to participate or discourage employees from participating in these
programs or because they may reinforce cultural norms that undermine employ-
ees’ efforts to integrate their work and family lives (Perlow, 1995; Starrels, 1992;
Thompson et al., 1992). Thus, at least three distinct components of work–family
culture can be identified in the literature: organizational time demands or expec-
tations that employees prioritize work over family, negative career consequences
associated with utilizing work–family benefits, and managerial support and
sensitivity to employees’ family responsibilities. It is likely, however, that these
components are interdependent to some extent, as each reflects an aspect of the
overall supportiveness of the culture for integrating employees’ work and family
lives.

Work–Family Benefit Utilization

Family-friendly or family-supportive programs and benefits refer to services
that enable employees to better manage the interface between work and family.
396 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

Because women are still responsible for the majority of child care and household
tasks (Greenberger, Goldberg, Hamill, O’Neil, & Payne, 1989; Hochschild &
Machung, 1989) and often experience greater conflict between their work and
family responsibilities (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa, 1991; Wiersma, 1990), we
predict that women will be more likely to use family-supportive benefits than
men. This is supported by research showing that women rated the importance of
various work–family benefits higher than did men (Frone & Yardley, 1996;
Wiersma, 1990). Although fathers are getting more involved in caring for their
children and are expressing more concerns about balance (Thomas & Ganster,
1995), they still seem reluctant to modify their work schedules to achieve balance
(Haas & Hwang, 1995). While research on the use of family-supportive benefits
is limited, there is evidence that women used more formal benefits than men
(Greenberger et al., 1989) and that female executives were more likely to have
taken a leave of absence during their careers than were male executives (Lyness
& Thompson, 1997).
Marital and parental status should also have an impact on who takes advantage
of work–family benefits. Because of the increased demands of managing a home
and possibly two careers, married employees should be more likely to use
family-supportive benefits than unmarried employees. In addition, employees
with children living at home need time and flexibility to deal with child care, sick
children, and domestic work that grow concomitantly as the number of children
increases. The literature suggests that employed parents of young children and
parents of large families are more likely to experience work–family conflict
(Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), and thus are more
likely to desire and need family-supportive benefits to help them reduce the
conflict (Frone & Yardley, 1996). Thus, we predict:

Hypothesis 1. Employees who are female, married or have children living with them will
be more likely to utilize work–family benefits than employees who are male, unmarried, or
childless.

A company’s culture can influence employees’ perceptions about the accept-

ability or potential consequences associated with utilizing work–family benefits.
For example, if a company rewards employees who spend long hours at work,
offering flextime or job sharing may not be consistent with the underlying
corporate culture, making it unlikely that employees will feel comfortable taking
advantage of these programs (Perlow, 1995; Thompson et al., 1992). In addition,
managers may have difficulty figuring out how to appraise, develop, and com-
pensate employees who do not fit the traditional mold (Bailyn, 1993). Perlow
(1995) and Finkel et al. (1994) found that employees were concerned about
possible negative career consequences associated with using work–family ben-
efits, and Judiesch and Lyness (in press) found that taking family leaves was
associated with negative career consequences. Therefore, we predict that:
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 397

Hypothesis 2. Employees who perceive more supportive work–family cultures will be more
likely to utilize work–family benefits than employees who perceive less supportive work–
family cultures.

Impact of Benefits and Culture on Organizational Attachment and Work–

Family Conflict
Given the increasing numbers of companies offering family-supportive bene-
fits to their employees (Lobel & Kossek, 1996; Mitchell, 1997), it is surprising
that so little evaluative research has been published (see Families and Work
Institute, 1993, for an exception). There is much anecdotal evidence, however,
that work–family programs increase loyalty and commitment to the company,
reduce absenteeism and turnover, reduce conflict between work and family, and
as a result increase productivity (e.g., Hammonds, 1997; Solomon, 1994).
Of the various work–family programs that are offered, most research has been
conducted on the effects of flexible scheduling and on-site child care on various
outcome measures. Research on flextime has been generally positive (see Ko-
pelman, 1992, for a review), but research about on-site child care has produced
mixed results. For example, although one study found that an on-site child care
center was positively associated with users’ attitudes toward managing work and
family (Kossek & Nichol, 1992), another study found that an on-site child care
center had no effect on work–family conflict (Goff, Mount, & Jamison, 1990).
Other studies have found a reduction of work–family conflict associated with
flexible scheduling (e.g., Thomas & Ganster, 1995). A study of male executives
also found a negative relationship between work–family conflict and organiza-
tional work–family policies (Judge, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994). The only study
that has systematically assessed the effect of multiple family-supportive benefits
on employees’ organizational attachment found that employees who worked for
companies with work–family benefits had higher levels of affective commitment
and lower intentions to leave than employees at companies without these benefits
(Grover & Crooker, 1995). In fact, they found that making family-friendly
policies available had a positive impact on employee attachment, regardless of
whether an employee individually benefited from the policies. Grover and
Crooker suggested that work–family benefits influence attachment to the orga-
nization symbolically because they signify corporate concern for employees’
well-being. Based on these research findings, we predict:

Hypothesis 3. Employees in organizations that provide more work–family benefits will

report greater organizational attachment and less work–family conflict than employees in
organizations with fewer work–family benefits.

We further propose that employees’ attitudes and intentions will be affected by

perceptions of how well the organization’s culture supports work–family bal-
ance. Specifically, a supportive culture should make it easier for employees to
balance work and family demands and, as a result, experience less work–family
398 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

conflict. Recent research suggests that supervisor support, which we consider a

component of work–family culture, is directly related to work–family conflict
(Goff et al., 1990; Thomas & Ganster, 1995) and indirectly related to work–
family conflict through its effect on work distress and work overload (Frone et
al., 1997). Heavy time demands, another proposed component of work–family
culture, have also been shown to be a direct cause of work–family conflict
(Parasuraman et al., 1996).
In addition to reducing work–family conflict, a supportive work–family culture
should also make an organization a more desirable place to work, thereby
positively influencing an employee’s commitment to the organization and his or
her intentions to remain with the organization. Research has shown that per-
ceived organizational support, defined as the extent to which employees feel
“valued and cared about by the organization,” was positively related to affective
commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990, p. 52) and that for
married women, informal workplace support (i.e., supervisor support, supervisor
flexibility, and coworker support) was related to a lower willingness to leave for
better family-responsive company benefits (Greenberger et al., 1989). Finally,
Rothausen (1994) found that for employees who were parents, satisfaction with
workplace flexibility was strongly related to intentions to quit. Her measure of
flexibility included several items related to our definition of a supportive work–
family culture, such as the opportunity to do part-time or flextime work without
being penalized and the ease of getting time off for family needs. Finally, in pilot
studies with earlier versions of the work–family culture scale introduced in this
study, Beauvais and Kowalski (1993) found that work–family culture was
negatively related to work–family conflict, and Francesco and Thompson (1996)
found that work–family culture was positively related to organizational commit-
ment. Therefore, we also predict:

Hypothesis 4. Perceptions of a supportive work–family culture will be positively related to

organizational attachment and negatively related to work–family conflict.

METHOD
Sample and Procedures
An 8-page survey was mailed in 1996 to alumni of three graduate business
programs (i.e., an executive MBA, a full-time MBA, and a master’s program in
industrial and labor relations) at two universities in the northeast United States.
Alumni who had graduated in the last 15 years were mailed surveys. The
response rate was 32%, with 276 completed surveys returned (35 undeliverable
surveys were not included in this calculation).
The majority of respondents were Caucasian (92%) and 42% were women.
Average age was about 40 years, and 74% of the respondents were married or
living with a partner (n 5 202). Slightly over half (53%) of the sample were
parents (n 5 145), and almost all (92%) of the parents were either married or
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 399

living with a partner (n 5 133). Consistent with other research on gender

differences in managers’ lifestyles (Lyness & Thompson, 1997; Rosin &
Korabik, 1995), men were more likely than women to be married or living with
a partner (t 5 23.70, p , .001) and to have children living with them (t 5
23.94, p , .001), with 61% of the men versus 41% of the women having
children. Some gender differences were also found in work-related variables; for
example, men averaged 9 years of tenure at their current organization, while
women averaged 7 years (t 5 22.07, p , .05). Although male respondents’
average yearly income was $75,000 versus $60,000 for female respondents (t 5
23.86, p , .001), total household income averaged about $102,000 for both
genders. No significant gender differences were found in hours worked, with
respondents reporting an average of 47 h per week. There also were no significant
gender differences in participants’ organizational levels, and the majority held
management positions. Almost 14% of the respondents were executives, 53%
were middle or upper middle managers, 8% were first-level supervisors, and 20%
held other professional jobs.

Measures
Work–family culture was measured with a 21-item scale developed from our
review of the literature, input from four subject-matter experts who have con-
ducted research and published in the work and family area, and previous pilot
studies (Beauvais & Kowalski, 1993; Francesco & Thompson, 1996). The items
assess respondents’ perceptions of the overall extent to which their organizations
facilitate employees’ efforts to balance work and family responsibilities (e.g., “In
this organization employees can easily balance their work and family lives”) as
well as the three components of work–family culture, which are managerial
support (e.g., “In general, managers in this organization are quite accommodating
of family-related needs”), negative consequences associated with devoting time
to family responsibilities (e.g., “Many employees are resentful when men in this
organization take extended leaves to care for newborn or adopted children”), and
organizational time demands or expectations that may interfere with family
responsibilities (e.g., “Employees are often expected to take work home at night
and/or on weekends”). Respondents indicated the extent to which each item
characterized their current organizations using a 7-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Negatively worded items were recoded
and responses were summed across the 21 items so that high scores reflected a
supportive work–family culture. Alpha for the scale was .92 (based on the final
20 items, as described below and shown in Table 1).
To identify the underlying dimensions in the work–family culture scale, we
carried out a principal components analysis with equamax rotation. This analysis
is based on 249 respondents with no missing data on the 21 culture items, which
is consistent with recommendations that at least a 10:1 ratio of observations to
variables is needed (Nunnally, 1978). We used multiple criteria to determine how
many factors to retain (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986), and all of the criteria
400 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

TABLE 1
Results of Principal Components Analysis of Work–Family Culture Items

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Managerial Career Organizational
Item support consequences time demands

8. In general, managers in this organization are .78 .24 .31

quite accommodating of family-related needs.
5. Higher management in this organization .75 .14 .13
encourages supervisors to be sensitive to
employees’ family and personal concerns.
16. Middle managers and executives in this .75 .31 .17
organization are sympathetic toward
employees’ child care responsibilities.
2. In the event of a conflict, managers are .74 .23 .28
understanding when employees have to put
their family first.
20. In this organization employees are .74 .16 .24
encouraged to strike a balance between their
work and family lives.
18. Middle managers and executives in this .62 .50 .09
organization are sympathetic toward
employees’ elder care responsibilities.
17. This organization is supportive of employees .57 .42 .12
who want to switch to less demanding jobs for
family reasons.
3. In this organization it is generally okay to talk .56 .18 .09
about one’s family at work.
1. In this organization employees can easily .54 .14 .47
balance their work and family lives.
15. This organization encourages employees to .54 .08 .28
set limits on where work stops and home life
begins.
14. In this organization it is very hard to leave .46 .37 .31
during the workday to take care of personal or
family matters. (R)
13. Many employees are resentful when men in .06 .76 .09
this organization take extended leaves to care
for newborn or adopted children. (R)
9. Many employees are resentful when women in .12 .70 .14
this organization take extended leaves to care
for newborn or adopted children. (R)
12. In this organization employees who .23 .70 .10
participate in available work–family programs
(e.g., job sharing, part-time work) are viewed
as less serious about their careers than those
who do not participate in these programs. (R)
7. To turn down a promotion or transfer for .21 .63 .17
family-related reasons will seriously hurt one’s
career progress in this organization. (R)
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 401

TABLE 1—Continued

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Managerial Career Organizational
Item support consequences time demands

19. In this organization employees who use .10 .49 .24

flextime are less likely to advance their careers
than those who do not use flextime. (R)
10. To get ahead at this organization, employees .08 .23 .83
are expected to work more than 50 hours a
week, whether at the workplace or at home. (R)
4. Employees are often expected to take work 2.01 .01 .80
home at night and/or on weekends. (R)
6. Employees are regularly expected to put their .40 .24 .60
jobs before their families. (R)
11. To be viewed favorably by top management, .48 .40 .60
employees in this organization must constantly
put their jobs ahead of their families or
personal lives. (R)

Eigenvalue 8.35 1.57 1.47

Percentage of total variance explained 41.7 7.8 7.4

Note: n 5 249. R indicates item was reverse-scored. Highest loading for each item is italicized.

supported a three-factor solution. There were three factors with eigenvalues

greater than 1 (see Table 1), examination of the scree plot indicated a marked
discontinuity after three factors, the solution was interpretable, and composite
scales representing the three factors had alphas ranging from .74 to .91. Together
the three factors accounted for 57% of the total variance, with Factor 1 explaining
the most variance (close to 42%) and Factors 2 and 3 explaining about 8% and
7% of the variance, respectively.
Factor interpretation was based on items with highest loadings. One item (“In
this organization, spending long hours on the job is valued more than getting the
work done”) was dropped because it had approximately equal loadings on the
second and third factors. Items and loadings from the final 20-item solution are
shown in Table 1. Factor 1 represented the extent to which managers were
supportive and sensitive to employees’ family responsibilities (hereafter referred
to as “managerial support”). Factor 2 represented the extent to which there were
negative career consequences associated with utilizing work–family benefits,
such as dependent care leaves, or turning down jobs for family-related reasons
(“career consequences”). Factor 3 represented the extent to which employees
experienced organizational time demands or expectations that might interfere
with nonwork responsibilities (“organizational time demands”). Composite
scores were created for each of the three dimensions of work–family culture by
summing items with highest loadings on the factor. The alphas for the resulting
402 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

dimension scales were .91 for managerial support (11 items), .74 for career
consequences (5 items), and .80 for organizational time demands (4 items).
Work–family benefit availability was measured by asking respondents whether
their organizations provided each of 19 work–family programs or policies that
are commonly mentioned in the literature (e.g., Galinsky et al., 1993), such as
family care leave (i.e., time off for maternity, paternity, or adoption reasons),
absence autonomy (i.e., ability to take time off when needed and make it up
another day), flextime, job sharing, and sick child care. Participants indicated
their responses on a 3-point scale (yes 5 3, don’t know 5 2, no 5 1) developed
by Gooler (1996). The data indicated that the most commonly provided benefits
were family care leave (88%), part-time work (74%), absence autonomy (66%),
flextime (61%), and time off for dependent care (59%). Consistent with other
research (Osterman, 1995), we created a composite work–family benefit avail-
ability score by summing responses across the 19 items for each participant.
Alpha for the scale was .84.
Work–family benefit utilization was measured by asking respondents to indi-
cate whether they had used each of 16 specific work–family benefits within the
last year, using a 2-point scale of yes (coded 1) or no (coded 0). The items were
the same as those rated for benefit availability except that three general items
were dropped, as they were not policies or services that were “usable” (e.g., a
mission statement acknowledging employees’ personal lives). The most com-
monly used benefits were absence autonomy (60%), flextime (45%), working at
home (27%), and flexible spending accounts (20%). A composite benefit utili-
zation score was created by summing responses across the 16 items. Alpha for
the scale was .54, which appeared to be low primarily due to low frequencies of
utilization for some benefits. However, rather than arbitrarily dropping low
frequency items, we utilized all 16 items as planned.
Organizational attachment was operationalized as affective commitment and
intention to leave the organization, consistent with other research (e.g., Grover &
Crooker, 1995). Affective commitment was measured with a 4-item version of
Allen and Meyer’s (1990) affective commitment scale (e.g., “This organization
has a great deal of personal meaning for me”). Respondents indicated the extent
of their agreement using 7-point scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Intention to leave was measured with three items from Rosin
and Korabik (1991) concerning respondents’ plans to look for a new job (e.g.,
“Are you actively searching for another job right now?”), with a 2-point response
scale of yes (coded 2) or no (coded 1). A high score for affective commitment
represented a positive attitude, and a high score for intention to leave represented
a negative attitude. Alphas were .89 for affective commitment and .78 for
intention to leave.
Work–family conflict was operationalized as work-to-family conflict. Although
it is possible that work–family policies and a supportive work–family culture
may differentially affect the two types of conflict usually studied (i.e., work-to-
family conflict and family-to-work conflict), there is more conceptual and em-
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 403

pirical support for a relationship between work–family policies, a supportive

work environment, and work-to-family conflict (e.g., Frone et al., 1997; Thomas
& Ganster, 1995). Work-to-family conflict was measured with four items assess-
ing the extent to which work interferes with family, taken from Thompson and
Blau (1993) (e.g., “My work schedule interferes with my personal life”). Re-
sponses were indicated on the same 7-point scale used for affective commitment.
Alpha for the work-to-family conflict scale was .86.
Demographic variables included gender (female 5 1, male 5 2), number of
children living with respondent, marital status (married or living with partner 5
2, other 5 1), job level (1 5 hourly worker, 2 5 first-level supervisor, 3 5
middle manager or professional, 4 5 department head or executive), annual
salary, total household income, race, and average hours worked per week.
Human capital variables, including age and tenure, as well as organizational level
and gender, were used as control variables in predicting work attitudes. Because
work-to-family conflict is related to hours worked per week (Gutek et al., 1991;
Judge et al., 1994) and number of children (Judge et al., 1994), these variables
as well as marital status were added as control variables in predicting work-to-
family conflict.

Analyses
We used hierarchical multiple regression to test all hypotheses, with control
variables entered in the first step, followed by the variables to be tested, using
simultaneous entry of all variables within a step. For the analyses predicting
work–family benefit utilization, work–family benefit availability was entered as
a control variable in Step 1, with demographic variables entered in Step 2 to test
Hypothesis 1, and work–family culture entered in Step 3 to test Hypothesis 2.
After testing the hypotheses involving work–family culture with the 20-item
culture scale, we carried out post hoc analyses involving a more fine-grained
assessment with the three culture dimensions. For the analyses predicting orga-
nizational attachment and work–family conflict, appropriate demographics were
entered as control variables in Step 1, with work–family benefit availability
entered in Step 2 to test Hypothesis 3, and work–family culture entered in Step
3 to test Hypothesis 4. Significance of the results was determined from the F test
for R 2 change, adjusted for shrinkage, associated with the variable(s) added in the
last step as well as significance of beta coefficients for hypothesized predictors.

RESULTS
Work–Family Benefit Utilization
Table 2 provides means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations. Hypothesis
1 predicted that work–family benefit utilization would be greater among women,
married employees, and those with children living with them than among other
employees. The results (Column 1 in Table 3) supported the hypothesis; after
controlling for benefit availability, all three demographic variables had statisti-
 404
TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Estimates, and Intercorrelations

Variable a M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Work–family benefit .54 1.83 1.61

utilization a
2. Affective commitment a .89 17.27 6.31 .17

THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

3. Intention to leave a .78 2.05 0.56 2.20 2.56
4. Work-to-family conflict a .86 14.32 5.74 2.12 2.12 .17
5. Work–family benefit .84 38.15 8.13 .28 .35 2.32 2.21
availability a
6. Work–family culture b .92 85.20 20.06 .28 .42 2.48 2.55 .45
7. Managerial support b .91 49.84 12.08 .30 .39 2.42 2.47 .47 .94
8. Career consequences b .74 20.34 5.56 .21 .31 2.40 2.43 .32 .76 .58
9. Organizational time .80 15.15 5.71 .17 .32 2.32 2.52 .23 .80 .63 .50
demands b
10. Number of children a 0.96 1.04 .33 .17 2.06 2.05 .08 .08 .12 .03 .04
11. Marital status c 1.74 0.44 .23 .03 .03 2.01 2.06 2.06 2.06 .03 2.05 .40
12. Gender d 1.58 0.49 2.11 .16 .00 2.01 .11 .05 .05 .06 2.01 .23 .23
13. Age a 40.15 7.70 2.03 2.08 .04 .01 2.09 2.02 2.03 2.05 .04 2.01 .01 .05
14. Organizational tenure a 8.14 7.40 .04 .06 .01 2.06 .09 .02 .02 .01 .04 .01 .12 .12 .39
15. Organizational level a 3.24 0.74 2.06 .14 2.03 .09 2.10 .04 .03 .03 .01 .08 .12 .08 .12 .04
16. Hours worked per week a 47.41 9.95 2.14 2.04 .16 .38 2.07 2.32 2.26 2.14 2.37 2.06 .09 .09 2.02 2.09 .29

Note. ns ranged from 242 to 274. rs $ .12, p , .05, two-tailed.

a
Higher values reflect a greater degree of the variable.
b
Higher values reflect more supportive cultures.
c
Marital status was coded 2 (married or living with partner) and 1 (other).
d
Gender was coded 1 (female) and 2 (male).
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 405

TABLE 3
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Work–Family Benefit Utilization with Demographic
Variables, Work–Family Culture, and Work–Family Culture Dimensions a

Demographic Work–family Work–family culture

variables culture dimensions
Predictors (H1) (H2) (H2)

Step 1
Work–family benefit availability .293*** .208** .193**
Step 2
Number of children .283*** .269*** .264***
Marital status .185** .197** .195**
Gender (1 5 female, 2 5 male) 2.244*** 2.245*** 2.250***
Step 3
Work–family culture .195**
Managerial support .201*
Career consequences .053
Organizational time demands 2.035
Summary statistics b
Multiple R .491 .521 .526
Adjusted R 2 .228 .254 .254
Adjusted R 2 change for last step .155 .027 .026
F change for last step 16.74*** 8.89** 3.61*

Note. ns ranged from 221 to 237.

a
Entries are standardized beta weights from full models.
b
Entries are for full model except for those indicated as change statistics.
* p , .05.
** p , .01.
*** p , .001.

cally significant beta coefficients in the predicted directions. Together the three
demographic variables accounted for almost 16% of additional variance and were
statistically significant (R 2 adj 5 .155, F change 5 16.74, p , .001).
Post hoc analyses revealed that the most frequently used benefits were similar
for parents and nonparents, but a greater percentage of parents used each benefit.
The most frequently used benefits were absence autonomy (utilized by 66% of
parents versus 51% of nonparents), flextime (50% of parents versus 40% of
nonparents), and telecommuting (33% of parents versus 20% of nonparents).
Even greater discrepancies in utilization rates were found for other benefits such
as time off for dependent care (20% of parents versus 4% of nonparents).
Similarly, the most frequently used benefits by nonparents were absence auton-
omy, flextime, and telecommuting, with married or partnered individuals report-
ing higher utilization rates than those without partners.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that benefit utilization would be greater by employees
who perceived more supportive work–family cultures than by those with less
supportive cultures. This hypothesis was also supported because, after control-
ling for benefit availability and demographics, work–family culture (Column 2 in
406 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

Table 3) explained approximately 3% of additional variance in benefit utilization

(R 2 adj 5 .027, F change 5 8.89, p , .01). The positive coefficient for culture
indicated that, as predicted, more supportive cultures were associated with
greater benefit utilization (b 5 .195, p , .01). Only one of the coefficients for
the culture dimensions was significant (Column 3 in Table 3), indicating that
greater benefit utilization was associated with more managerial support (b 5
.201, p , .05).

Impact of Benefits and Culture on Organizational Attachment and Work–

Family Conflict
Hypothesis 3 predicted that employees whose organizations provided more
work–family benefits would have more positive work attitudes than employees in
organizations with fewer benefits. The results supported the hypothesis; after
controlling for appropriate demographic variables, work–family benefit avail-
ability was a significant predictor for all three work attitudes. Benefit availability
explained 11% of additional variance in affective commitment (Column 1 in
Table 4), 9% of additional variance in intention to leave (Column 4), and 3% of
variance in work-to-family conflict (Column 7). The results indicated that higher
scores on benefit availability were associated with higher affective commitment
(b 5 .346, p , .001), less intention to leave the organization (b 5 2.332, p ,
.001), and less work-to-family conflict (b 5 2.192, p , .01). Examination of the
correlations between individual benefits available and work attitudes indicated
that family leave, dependent care leave, and absence autonomy had the highest
correlations with affective commitment and intention to leave (rs ranged from .23
to .27, p , .001), and dependent care leave, emergency child care, and family
leave had the highest correlations with work-to-family conflict (rs ranged from
.18 to .20, p , .01).
Hypothesis 4 was also supported because, after controlling for demographics
and benefit availability, work–family culture explained significant amounts of
additional variance in all three work attitudes (see Table 4). Work–family culture
explained close to 8% of additional variance in affective commitment (Column
2), indicating that more supportive cultures were associated with higher affective
commitment (b 5 .316, p , .001). Examination of coefficients for the culture
dimensions (Column 3) indicated that lower organizational time demands were
associated with higher affective commitment (b 5 .159, p , .05).
Work–family culture explained close to 14% of additional variance in inten-
tion to leave (Column 5), indicating that more supportive cultures were associ-
ated with less intention to leave the organization (b 5 2.413, p , .001).
Coefficients for the culture dimensions (Column 6) revealed that less intention to
leave was associated with more managerial support (b 5 2.180, p , .05) and
fewer negative career consequences for using work–family benefits (b 5 2.215,
p , .01).
Work–family culture explained 18% of additional variance in work-to-family
conflict (Column 8), indicating that more supportive cultures were associated
 TABLE 4
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Work Attitudes with Work–Family Benefit Availability,
Work–Family Culture, and Work–Family Culture Dimensions

Affective commitment Intention to leave Work-to-family conflict

Predictors (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Step 1
Age 2.090 2.096 2.100 .006 .013 .008 .010 .014 .019
Organizational tenure .041 .051 .049 .033 .021 .019 2.007 2.038 2.036
Organizational level .177** .153* .156** 2.064 2.032 2.030 2.029 .061 .055

WORK–FAMILY CULTURE
Gender (1 5 female, 2 5 male) .108 .108 .110 .041 .041 .047 2.016 .002 2.004
Hours worked per week .379*** .203** .205**
Number of children .018 .026 .018
Marital status 2.053 2.068 2.050
Step 2 (H3)
Work–family benefit availability .346*** .200** .226** 2.332*** 2.142* 2.159* 2.192** .032 2.005
Step 3 (H4)
Work–family culture .316*** 2.413*** 2.510***
Managerial support .120 2.180* 2.156
Career consequences .072 2.215** 2.181**
Organizational time demands .159* 2.067 2.254**
Summary statistics b
Multiple R .416 .503 .500 .329 .494 .486 .426 .600 .605
Adjusted R 2 .154 .232 .223 .087 .222 .208 .151 .333 .334
Adjusted R 2 change for last step .112 .078 .068 .087 .135 .120 .032 .182 .182
F change for last step 29.66*** 22.75*** 7.61*** 25.35*** 38.32*** 12.41*** 8.96** 58.73*** 21.07***

Note. ns ranged from 221 to 232.

a
Entries are standardized beta weights from full models.
b
Entries are for full model except for those indicated as change statistics.
* p , .05.
** p , .01.

407
*** p , .001.
408 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

with less of this type of work–family conflict (b 5 2.510, p , .001). Coeffi-

cients for the culture dimensions (Column 9) indicated that less work-to-family
conflict was associated with fewer negative career consequences for using
benefits (b 5 2.181, p , .01) and lower organizational time demands (b 5
2.254 p , .01). Consistent with the literature discussed earlier, number of hours
worked per week was also significantly related to work-to-family conflict (b 5
.203, p , .01).

DISCUSSION
The purposes of this study were to (1) introduce a measure of work–family
culture; (2) investigate the correlates of work–family benefit utilization, includ-
ing work–family culture; and (3) determine whether work–family benefit avail-
ability and supportive work–family culture were related to organizational attach-
ment and work–family conflict. The results generally accomplished these
objectives and supported our predictions.

Work–Family Culture
Although some researchers have noted the importance of considering culture
in addition to work–family benefits (Galinsky & Stein, 1990; Perlow, 1995), to
our knowledge, our measure of work–family culture is the first of its kind in the
published academic literature. Our data suggest that it is a reliable instrument and
is distinguishable from measures of work–family benefit availability and utili-
zation. In addition, we identified three reliable dimensions of work–family
culture: perceived managerial support, negative career consequences for devoting
time to family concerns, and organizational time demands and expectations that
interfere with family responsibilities. Not only was work–family culture in
general significantly associated with utilization rates of work–family benefits,
organizational attachment, and perceptions that work interfered with family, but
the different dimensions were found to have unique relationships with these
behavioral and attitudinal variables. Our findings also suggest that an assessment
of the organizational culture should be included in evaluations of family sup-
portive programs.

Work–Family Benefit Utilization

Consistent with predictions, we found that employees who were married, were
female, or had children were more likely to utilize work–family benefits than
other employees. Although there are anecdotal stories that work and family
programs lacking cultural support do not work well (Hammonds, 1997), our
study provides the first empirical verification that perceptions of a supportive
work–family culture are associated with greater utilization rates of such benefits.
Specifically, the cultural dimension of managerial support was significantly
related to utilization, suggesting that managerial support on a daily basis may be
the most critical cultural variable in employees’ decisions to use family-friendly
benefits and programs.
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 409

Impact of Benefits and Culture on Organizational Attachment and Work–

Family Conflict
Our results indicated that employees whose organizations provided work–
family benefits reported greater affective commitment, less intention to leave the
organization, and less work-to-family conflict. Grover and Crooker (1995) also
found that benefits were linked to organizational attachment and suggested that
benefits may signify to employees that the organization is concerned about their
welfare, which in turn fosters greater emotional attachment to the company. Our
findings also corroborate research by Coakley and Karren (1996), who found that
employees’ desire for work-schedule autonomy was positively related to their
intentions to leave the organization. Finally, the finding that benefit availability
was negatively related to work-to-family conflict is consistent with research that
has examined this relationship (e.g., Thomas & Ganster, 1995).
Of particular importance is our finding that the perception of a supportive
work–family culture was significantly related to work attitudes, above and
beyond availability of work–family benefits. Supportive work–family culture
was related to higher levels of affective commitment, lower intention to leave the
organization, and less work-to-family conflict. Although previous research has
found relationships between supportive work–family culture and work–family
conflict (Beauvais & Kowalski, 1993) as well as organizational commitment
(Francesco & Thompson, 1996), the present study is the first to empirically
measure the effects of work–family culture on multiple work attitudes while
controlling for the effects of benefit availability. These findings provide evidence
for the often-voiced contention that, no matter how many and what kinds of
work–family programs are offered, the culture in the organization is crucial for
determining not only whether people will use the benefits, but also their general
attitudes toward the organization (Galinsky & Stein, 1990; Lewis & Taylor,
1996; Thompson et al., 1992).
Further, as indicated above, these results argue for a multidimensional con-
ceptualization and measurement of work–family culture. For example, we found
that perceptions of lower organizational time demands were related to affective
commitment but that managerial support and career consequences for utilizing
work–family benefits were not. On the other hand, we found that perceived
managerial support and fewer negative career consequences for utilizing work–
family benefits were associated with less intention to leave the organization. Our
finding that the managerial support dimension of work–family culture was not
related to affective commitment appears to be somewhat inconsistent with other
research (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Greenberger et al., 1989). A possible expla-
nation, however, is that the general measures of organizational support used in
the Eisenberger and Greenberger studies differ from our measure of managerial
support for work–family balance. Specifically, the Eisenberger measure assessed
general perceptions of how much the organization valued employees’ contribu-
tions and cared about their well-being, and the Greenberger measure assessed
410 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

supervisory and coworker support and supervisor allowance of flexibility in the

workplace. Neither of these scales was designed to measure specific facets of the
organization’s culture that support work–family balance.
When employees perceived that there were fewer negative career conse-
quences for devoting time to family matters and fewer organizational time
demands that interfered with family life, they reported lower levels of work-to-
family conflict. Not surprisingly, employees who worked fewer hours also had
lower levels of work-to-family conflict, which is consistent with Gutek et al.’s
(1991) and Frone et al.’s (1997) research. It is interesting to note, however, that
our cultural dimension of organizational time demands and expectations ex-
plained additional variance even after we controlled for hours worked. A possible
explanation is provided by Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) contention that in
addition to being related to actual time pressures, work–family conflict is related
to preoccupation with one role while attempting to meet the demands of another
role. Thus, if employees work for an organization whose culture requires prior-
itizing work over family, this may cause work-to-family conflict above and
beyond the actual hours worked.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Our study has a few limitations that should be considered in interpreting the
findings. First, our respondents were graduates of master’s-level business pro-
grams and the majority held mid- to high-level managerial and/or professional
jobs. Although they represent an important group to study, it is possible that our
findings may not generalize to all employees. For example, highly compensated
employees may be able to hire or support caretakers to perform family domain
work. Also, some managers or professionals in customer-contact jobs may not be
eligible to use certain benefits, such as job sharing or telecommuting. Future
research should examine the extent to which our findings apply to employees in
other occupations and organizational levels. It should also be noted that our
response rate was rather low (32%), although according to Alreck and Settle
(1985) response rates of 30% are not uncommon for survey research.
As noted in our Method section, the alpha for our measure of work–family
benefit utilization was only .54. This may have occurred because we collected
dichotomous ratings of whether or not respondents had used each benefit during
the prior year. Future researchers may want to develop more sensitive measures
of benefit utilization, for example, by asking respondents about the extent or
frequency of their benefit usage or by collecting longitudinal information about
actual benefit usage over longer time periods. Another limitation is that because
our data were collected at one point in time, causal inferences are inappropriate.
Although work–family benefits and supportive work–family cultures may lead to
positive employee attitudes, it is also possible that organizations may offer
work–family benefits only after a number of employees experience difficulties
integrating the two domains. In addition, the more employees use work–family
benefits (e.g., the more fathers who take paternity leaves), the more culturally
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 411

supportive the organization may become toward work and family balance, or
alternatively, the less employees use benefits, the more likely they may perceive
an unsupportive culture.
The limitations of the current study point to several directions for future
research on work–family programs. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess
causal relationships among availability and utilization of formal programs, cul-
ture, and employee attitudes and behavior over time. Past research and the
current study have examined relationships among availability of programs and
employee attitudes and behavior, but have not explored the effects of utilization
of such benefits on these outcomes. It is quite possible that utilization of benefits
may also have an important influence on employees’ attitudes and behaviors, and
the relationships among benefit availability, utilization, work–family culture, and
employee attitudes should be further explored. It would be instructive to examine
organizations before and after work–family programs are implemented to assess
their antecedents and consequences in a more controlled fashion. In addition,
future research might examine the supportiveness of work–family culture in
organizations that have offered work–family programs for many years compared
to those that have implemented them only recently. Since culture takes time to
develop, organizations that have offered family-friendly benefits for many years
may have significantly more supportive cultures than those companies that have
only recently begun offering such programs.
Future research should also expand the scope of variables studied to include
absenteeism rates, satisfaction, actual turnover, and job performance. Family-
domain variables should be included as well, such as family-to-work conflict and
family involvement, satisfaction, and stress, as they might interact in complex
ways with work-domain variables to affect utilization rates, perception of culture,
and demand for corporate work–family programs (Frone et al., 1992, 1997).
Further, psychological and social characteristics of employees, such as career and
family salience (Lobel, 1991), dual versus single earner status, and educational
levels would be interesting to examine with respect to differential benefit-
utilization rates and perceptions of supportive work–family culture. It may be
valuable to examine the relationship between work–family culture and general
organizational culture because cultures that are supportive of employees in
multiple ways may also be “family-friendly.” Future research might also be
conducted to identify specific practices and behaviors associated with perceived
work–family culture, such as actual managerial support activities, time demands,
and negative career consequences. Finally, there may be additional facets of
work–family culture that are salient to specific organizational contexts; for
example, coworker support and sensitivity to employees’ family responsibilities
may be particularly important in an organization where work is done in teams.
Research into these issues would add to our understanding of the relationships
among organizational context, workplace practices and policies, work–family
culture, and employee attitudes and behaviors.
Another direction for future research is to examine the relationships of work–
412 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

family benefit availability and supportive work–family cultures with career

advancement for men and women at various career stages. Because women tend
to be more involved and commit more time to family responsibilities than do
men, it may be particularly important to address the implications of our findings
for women’s careers. On the other hand, there appears to be a growing concern
about balance among men (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Men who are the major
breadwinners in their families may feel especially burdened by the possible
career (and monetary) consequences of taking more time for family. In addition,
men or women who work in male gender-typed occupations (i.e., those tradi-
tionally held by men, such as construction work or bond trading) may experience
stronger sanctions for putting family first, compared to employees in female
gender-typed jobs (e.g., social workers, librarians). It would be useful, therefore,
to examine benefit utilization, cultural perceptions, and actual long-term career
consequences associated with participation in work–family programs for men
and women in various occupations.
It is also important in future research to examine how and why organizations
change their cultures to be more family-friendly. How do employees influence
the organization to implement and support family-friendly programs? What
triggers employees to attempt to change their organizations’ work–family cul-
tures? Are high-level employees more apt to influence the organization than
low-level employees? The answers to these kinds of questions may help us
develop a set of strategies that employees, managers, and/or human resource
professionals can use to successfully build organizations that are truly concerned
with helping all employees better integrate their work and family lives.
In conclusion, this study has advanced research on work and family by
introducing a reliable three-facet measure of work–family culture: perceived
managerial support, negative career consequences for devoting time to family
concerns, and organizational time demands and expectations that interfere with
family responsibilities. The findings show that perceptions of a supportive
work–family culture are significantly related to whether or not employees will
use work–family benefits, how committed they are to the organization, whether
they intend to stay with the organization, and how much work–family conflict
they experience, even after controlling for the availability of work–family ben-
efits. That the three cultural dimensions were differentially related to these
behaviors and attitudes underscores the complex nature of work–family culture.
Finally, our study highlights the importance of assessing the impact of cultural
assumptions and beliefs regarding work–family balance on the success of
“family-friendly” programs.

REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-
chology, 63, 1–18.
Alreck, P. A., & Settle, R. B. (1985). The survey research handbook. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 413

Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Women, men and time in the new corporate world. New York:
Free Press.
Beauvais, L. L., & Kowalski, K. B. (1993, August). Predicting work/family conflict and participation
in family-supportive work behaviors: A test of two competing theories. Paper presented at the
Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Beehr, T. A. (1985). The role of social support in coping with organizational stress. In T. A. Beehr
& R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations: An integrative perspective.
(pp. 375–398). New York: Wiley Interscience.
Coakley, L., & Karren, R. (1996, April). An analysis of work schedule autonomy and work–family
conflict. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 619 – 654.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
51–59.
Families and Work Institute. (1993). An evaluation of Johnson & Johnson’s balancing work and
family program. New York: Author.
Finkel, S. K., Olswang, S., & She, N. (1994). Childbirth, tenure, and promotion for women faculty.
Review of Higher Education, 17, 259 –270.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in
applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314.
Francesco, A. M., & Thompson, C. A. (1996, August). Pregnant working women: An unrecognized
diversity challenge. Paper presented at the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psycho-
logical Association, Toronto, Canada.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family
conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
65–78.
Frone, M. R., & Yardley, J. K. (1996). Workplace family-supportive programmes: Predictors of
employed parents’ importance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
69, 351–366.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model
of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Friedman, D. E. (1993). Highlights: The national study of the changing
workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Galinsky, E., & Stein, P. J. (1990). The impact of human resource policies on employees: Balancing
work and family life. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 368 –383.
Glass, J., & Fujimoto, T. (1995). Employer characteristics and the provision of family responsive
policies. Work and Occupations, 22, 380 – 411.
Goff, S. J., Mount, M. K., & Jamison, R. L. (1990). Employer supported child care, work/family
conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43, 793– 809.
Gooler, L. (1996). Coping with work–family conflict: The role of organizational support. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Baruch College, New York.
Greenberger, E., Goldberg, W. A., Hamill, S., O’Neil, R., & Payne, C. K. (1989). Contributions of
a supportive work environment to parents’ well-being and orientation to work. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 755–783.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76 – 88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1986). A work–nonwork interactive perspective of stress and
its consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 37– 60.
414 THOMPSON, BEAUVAIS, AND LYNESS

Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies:
The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-
parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271–288.
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work–
family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560 –568.
Haas, L., & Hwang, P. (1995). Company culture and men’s usage of family leaves in Sweden. Family
Relations, 44, 28 –36.
Hammonds, K. H. (1997, September 15). Work and family: Business Week’s second survey of
family-friendly corporate policies. Business Week, 96 –99, 102–104.
Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at
home. New York: Viking Penguin.
Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 767–782.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1995). An empirical investigation
of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 485–519.
Judiesch, M. K., & Lyness, K. S. (in press). Left behind? The impact of leaves of absence on
managers’ career success. Academy of Management Journal.
Kofodimos, J. (1993). Balancing act: How managers can integrate successful careers and fulfilling
personal lives. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Kopelman, R. E. (1992). Alternative work schedules. In W. K. Hodson (Ed.), Maynard’s industrial
engineering handbook (4th ed., pp. 10.105–10.121). New York: McGraw–Hill.
Kossek, E. E., & Nichol, V. (1992). The effects of on-site child care on employees’ attitudes and
performance. Personnel Psychology, 45, 485–509.
Lambert, S. J. (1990). Processes linking work and family: A critical review and research agenda.
Human Relations, 43, 239 –257.
Lewis, S., & Taylor, K. (1996). Evaluating the impact of family-friendly employer policies: A case
study. In S. Lewis & J. Lewis (Eds.), The work family challenge: Rethinking employment (pp.
112–127). London: Sage.
Lobel, S. A. (1991). Allocation of investment in work and family roles: Alternative theories and
implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 16, 507–521.
Lobel, S. A., & Kossek, E. E. (1996). Human resource strategies to support diversity in work and
personal lifestyles: Beyond the “family-friendly” organization. In E. E. Kossek & S. A. Lobel
(Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for transforming the workplace (pp.
221–244). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched
samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359 –375.
Mitchell, O. S. (1997). Work and family benefits. In F. D. Blau & R. G. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Gender
and family issues in the workplace (pp. 269 –276). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Morris, B. (1997). Is your family wrecking your career? Fortune, 135(5), 70 –76, 80, 86, 90.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.
Osterman, P. (1995). Work/family programs and the employment relationship. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 40, 681–700.
Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y. S., Godshalk, V. M., & Beutell, N. J. (1996). Work and family variables,
entrepreneurial career success, and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
48, 275–300.
Perlow, L. A. (1995). Putting the work back into work/family. Group and Organization Management,
20, 227–239.
Rosin, H. M., & Korabik, K. (1991). Workplace variables, affective responses, and intention to leave
among women managers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 317–330.
Rosin, H., & Korabik, K. (1995). Organizational experiences and propensity to leave: A multivariate
investigation of men and women managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 1–16.
 WORK–FAMILY CULTURE 415

Rothausen, T. J. (1994). Job satisfaction and the parent worker: The role of flexibility and rewards.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 317–336.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco:
Jossey–Bass.
Schriber, J. B., & Gutek, B. A. (1987). Some time dimensions of work: Measurement of an
underlying aspect of organization culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 642– 650.
Solomon, C. M. (1994, May). Work/family’s failing grade: Why today’s initiatives aren’t enough.
Personnel Journal, 72– 87.
Starrels, M. E. (1992). The evolution of workplace family policy research. Journal of Family Issues,
13, 259 –278.
Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work–family
conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6 –15.
Thompson, C. A., & Blau, G. (1993). Moving beyond traditional predictors of job involvement:
Exploring the impact of work–family conflict and overload. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 8, 635– 646.
Thompson, C. A., Thomas, C. C., & Maier, M. (1992). Work–family conflict and the bottom line:
Reassessing corporate policies and initiatives. In U. Sekaran & F. T. Leong (Eds.), Woman-
power: Managing in times of demographic turbulence (pp. 59 – 84). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Wiersma, U. J. (1990). Gender differences in job attribute preferences: Work– home conflict and job
level as mediating variables. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 231–243.

Received: March 5, 1998