A r t ic le

P u b lic P e rs o n n e l M a n a g e m e n t
2 0 1 4 , V o l. 4 3 (4 ) 5 2 0 - 5 4 2
T h e In flu en ce o f F a m ily- © T h e A u th o r ( s ) 2 0 14
R e p rin ts a nd p e rm is s io n s :
F rie n d ly Policies on T u rn o v e r s a g e p u b .c o m /jo u rn a ls P e rm is s io n s .n a v
D O I: 10 .1 1 7 7 /0 0 9 1 0 2 6 0 1 4 5 3 6 0 5 5
and P e rfo rm a n c e in S outh p p m .sa g e p u b .co m

K o re a ® SAGE

Kwang Bin B a e 1 and D oug G o o d m a n 1

A b s tra ct
This study investigates the relationship between family-friendly policies and
organizational performance, voluntary turnover rate, and labor productivity, using
the Korea W orkplace Panel Survey data from 2005 to 2009. The sample o f this
study consists o f 158 public organizations in South Korea. This study uses panel
data analysis to estimate the family-friendly policy effect. The result o f the analysis
suggests that the number of family-friendly policies is positively associated with
labor productivity in public organizations. However, the number of family-friendly
policies does not reduce the turnover rate. In addition, unionization has shown to
decrease turnover rate and is positively associated w ith labor productivity in public
organizations. The proportion o f female workers has a positive relationship with
turnover rate in organizations.

Keywords
family-friendly policy, organizational performance, turnover rate, labor productivity

In tro d u ctio n
Changes in the workplace as well as the growth in the number of working females and
dual-income families have expanded the responsibilities of women both within the
household and at work (Bond, Galinsky, & Swansberg, 1998). These sociological

'The U niversity o f Texas at Dallas, Richardson, T X , USA

Corresponding Author:
Doug Goodman, School o f Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, The U niversity o f Texas at Dallas, 800
W , Campbell Road, GR 31, Richardson, T X 75080-3021, USA.
Email: doug.goodman@utdallas.edu
Bae and Goodman 521

changes have also transformed South Korea’s workplace environment. Female partici­
pation in South Korea’s workplace increased from 37.2% in 1965 to 55% in 2001 (T.
Kim & Go, 2001), and down to 50% in 2012 (Statistics Korea, 2013). Furthermore,
owing to an increased divorce rate, the number of single-parent families has increased
from 642,000 in 1975 to 940,000 in 1996 (T. Kim & Go, 2001), and has reached
1,677,415 in 2012 (about 9%; Statistics Korea, 2012). Although a marked increase has
been seen in female employees in South Korea, the participation of females in the
labor market is low compared with Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development (OECD) countries. South Korea ranked 27th among 30 OECD members
in the female economic participation in 2008 (OECD, 2009). The reason why female
workers in South Korea remain economically inactive is the result of a male-centered
workplace, culture barriers, societal pressures, and gender differentiation. According
to a survey conducted by McKinsey and Company in 2012, many women employees
decide to quit their jobs to focus on child care partly due to a lack of family-friendly
policies at work and the double burden in the workplace and at home (M. S. Kim,
2013; McKinsey & Company, 2012).
In response to theses social changes, the Korean government has encouraged efforts
to promote family-friendly policies. The National Assembly in South Korea revised its
Labor Standard Act in 2001 by extending paid maternity leave from 60 days to 90 days
and aiming to prevent pregnant employees from working night shifts or on holidays.
An amendment to the Equal Employment Act provides benefits to workers on parental
leave to eligible for receiving a stipend from the central government (T. Kim & Go,
2001). According to these policy changes, many organizations have begun to adopt
family-friendly policies.
The increasing number of work-family policies raises concerns as to their effec­
tiveness. Proponents of family-friendly policies claim that these policies improve pro­
ductivity by reducing absenteeism and help organizations attract more competent
workers. Opponents, however, argue that organizational costs will rise are family-
friendly policies increase, and these policies are disadvantageous to workers without
children (Clifton & Shepard, 2004). Whereas several researchers have studied the
association between family-friendly policies and performance and absenteeism, results
are still equivocal. Employees with access to family-friendly policies “expressed sig­
nificantly lower intention to quit their jobs,” and they demonstrate a higher organiza­
tional commitment and an increase in performance (Grover & Crooker, 1995, p. 271;
Shepard, Clifton, & Kruse, 1996). Grover and Crooker (1995) also found that family-
friendly policies have a positive impact on the organization beyond the employees
who take advantage of those policies. Other empirical research has observed that fam­
ily-friendly policies have contributed to reducing employee withdrawal and has
increased organization commitment (Halpem, 2005). Clifton and Shepard (2004)
found that family-friendly policies have positive effects on organizational perfor­
mance, absenteeism, and productivity. Other studies, however, have been unable to
find a positive relationship between family-friendly policies and productivity. Kossek
and Ozeki (1998) concluded that the effect of family-friendly policies on work inte­
gration is only marginally effective. Preece and Filbeck (1999) claim that companies
 522 Public Personnel M anagem ent 43(4)

with family-friendly policies do not perform better than organizations with non­
family-friendly policies.
In light of these previous findings, this study further investigates the causal rela­
tionship between family-friendly policies and organizational performance in public
organizations. The purpose of this study is to determine whether family-friendly poli­
cies have a positive outcome on organizational performance in public organizations.
As such, the study also examines whether family-friendly policies have an inverse
impact on turnover rate in public institutions.
The contribution of this study to family-friendly policy research is twofold. First,
this article examines the effect of family-friendly policies at the organizational level.
Although previous research has investigated the association of family-friendly poli­
cies with turnover rate and performance, few studies have looked into the relationship
between family-friendly policies at the organizational level. Second, this study
explores the causal relationship by using panel data from the Korea Workplace Panel
Survey (KWPS), conducted from 2005 to 2009. This study examines the association
between family-friendly policies and performance and turnover rates by controlling
time variables.

L it e r a t u r e R e v ie w

The adoption of family-friendly policies has been categorized into two theoretical
approaches, institutional and rational choice approaches (den Dulk, 2005). The insti­
tutional approach argues that employers start family-friendly policies involuntarily,
due to social norm pressures. Institutions adapt policies and practices that are per­
ceived to be institutional norms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). In the realm of family-
friendly policies, den Dulk (2005) writes, “there is growing institutional pressure on
employers to develop work-family arraignments because of changes in the workforce,
i.e., more working women, more dual-earner families, more public attention, and, in
varying degrees in difference welfare states, more state regulations and legal obliga­
tions” (p. 170). Many organizations adopt family-friendly policies in response to legal
and regulatory obligations (den Dulk, 2005; Goodstein, 1994).
The rational choice approach, however, suggests that employers voluntarily adopt
family-friendly policies for economic benefits. According to the rational choice
approach, organizations implement family-friendly policies to improve the general
level of performance, financial performance, labor productivity, and to lower their
turnover rate. The rational choice approach assumes that individuals or organizations
are logical and self-interested, and that they want to increase benefits and reduce costs
(Seyler, Monroe, & Garand, 1995). Based on the assumptions of this approach, orga­
nizations believe that the benefits of family-friendly policies will exceed the costs of
those policies. This study adopts the rational choice approach as a framework for ana­
lyzing the association between family-friendly policies and the turnover rate and per­
formance of organizations.
Frye and Breaugh (2004) define family-friendly policy as the “degree to which
people perceive that their company has policies to personally assist them in integrating
8a e and G oodm an 523

their work and family roles” (p. 206). The set of family-friendly policies have varied
across studies, because there is no general list of family-friendly policies. Cayer (2003)
states that family-friendly policies include flexible work, dependent care, employee
assistance, legal assistance, and others. According to J. Kim and Wiggins (2011) and
S. Y. Lee and Hong (2011), family-friendly policies are categorized into four types:
child care subsidies, paid leave for family care, telework, and alternative work sched­
ules. In addition, Meyer, Mukerjee, and Sestero (2001) define family-friendly policies
as paid sick days, additional maternity leave, adoption assistance, child care, work at
home, and job sharing. Perry-Smith and Blum (2000) suggest that bundle policy
focuses less on specific components and is highly interactive with an organizational
level approach. They define work-family bundle as “a group of complementary,
highly related and, in some cases, overlapping human resource policies that may help
employees manage a non-work role” (Perry-Smith and Blum, 2000, p. 1107).
Table 1 summarizes a list of family-friendly and work flexibility benefits com­
monly found in the workplace. The items on list are ranked in terms of popularity.
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) separates job flexibility policies
from family-friendly policies; however, many organizations and scholars equate flex­
ibility policies with family-friendly policies (French & Goodman, 2012; French,
Goodman, & Morrison, in press). The flexibility items are used at higher rates than
those items in the family-friendly column. For this article, family-friendly also includes
flexibility items.
The literature relates the benefits of family-friendly policies to organizations in
areas of turnover and productivity. Becker and Gerhart (1996) suggest that human
resource bundles have a wider and increased effect on organizational level productiv­
ity in comparison with a focus on individual policies alone. To analyze the effects of
family-friendly policies from the organizational perspective, the study includes a num­
ber of family-friendly policies implemented in organizations, rather than specific poli­
cies, as the independent variable (as discussed below).
The late 1900s witnessed a rapid increase of women in the workplace with young
children at home (Newman & Matthew, 1999). Likewise, Korea has also seen a rapid
growth in women in the workforce since the late 1990s due to an increase in newly
graduate jobs and a rise in female participation in the service-oriented industry (Korea
Economic Institute of America, 2012). Today’s “workforce reflects a mix of dual-
earner couples, women of child bearing age, single parents, and middle-aged workers
who are likely to be responsible for elder care” (Newman & Matthews, 1999, p. 34).
As a result, there was an increased demand for family-friendly policies in the work­
place (Lambert, 2000). The need work family-friendly policies is no different in Korea
than it is in western society. Korea’s patriarchal society, its culture, and the pressure for
women to raise children justify the need for family-friendly policies in the Korean
workplace (M. S. Kim, 2013).
The literature is fdled with research detailing the organizational benefits of family-
friendly policies, including decreased turnover and higher productivity. Several stud­
ies make use of subjective evidence gathered from interviews with human resource
managers and employees to argue that family-friendly policies improve productivity
 524 Public Personnel Management 43(4)

Table I. Family-Friendly and Flexibility Benchmarks.

O ffer the benefit (%)

Family-friendly policies
Dependent care flexible spending account 71
On-site lactation/mother’s room 34
Bring child to w o rk in emergency 26
Domestic partner benefits fo r same-sex partners 24
Domestic partner benefits fo r opposite-sex partners 20
529 plan (college savings plans) 14
Child care referral service 12
Adoption assistance 11
Elder care referral service 8
Lactation support services 8
Access to backup child care services 4
Subsidized child care program 4
Nonsubsidized child care center 3
Subsidized child care center 3
Foster care assistance 2
Access to backup elder care services 2
Babies at w ork 2
Geriatric counseling 2
On-site elder care fairs 2
On-site parenting seminars 2
Elder care assisted living assessments 1
Elder care in-home assessments 1
Consortium child care center i
On-ramping programs fo r family members dealing w ith elder care issues 1
On-ramping programs fo r parents reentering the workplace 1
On-site vaccinations fo r infants/children 1
W o rk flexibility policies
Casual dress day (one day per week) 60
Telecommuting 58
Flextime 53
Flextime during core business hours 51
Telecommuting on an ad hoc basis 45
Break arrangements 39
Mealtime flex 37
Telecommuting on a part-time basis 36
Compressed workweek 35
Casual dress (every day) 34
Flextime outside core business hours 26
Casual dress (seasonal) 23
Telecommuting on a full-time basis 20
Shift flexibility 19
Seasonal scheduling 19
Job sharing 10
Alternating location arrangements 4
Results-only w o rk environment 4

Source. Adapted from Society fo r Human Resource Management (2013, pp. 34-38).
Bae and Goodman 525

(Barker, 1995; Capowski, 1996; Johnson, 1995; Lawlor, 1996). Other studies have
conducted multifirm surveys to analyze statistical methods in public organizations
(Clifton & Shepard, 2004; Selden & Moynihan, 2000; Shepard, Clifton, & Kruse,
1996; see Table 2).
Table 2 summarizes previous literature with regard to the association between
family-friendly policies and organizational performance using statistical analysis.
Previous studies have presented diverse perspectives on factors comprising family-
friendly policies. Based on organizational panel data analysis, Shepard et al. (1996)
state that flexible work scheduling increased the organization’s productivity. According
to Konrad and Mangel (2000) and Perry-Smith and Blum (2000), there is a positive
and significant relationship between the work-life programs and the bundle of family-
friendly policies and organizational productivity. Moon and Roh (2010) argue that
family-friendly policies, particularly the ease in using family-friendly policies, is a
strong factor influencing job motivation, work performance, and employee morale at
the individual level. Several family-friendly policies such as flextime, child care sub­
sidies, telework, and alternative schedules reduce turnover rate and turnover intention
in public organizations (J. Kim & Wiggins, 2011; B. H. Lee & Kim, 2009; S. Y. Lee &
Hong, 2011; Selden & Moynihan, 2000). This article focuses on turnover and produc­
tivity in public organizations in South Korea.

Turnover Rate
Previous studies analyzed the relationship between family-friendly policies and turn­
over rate. Dalton and Mesch (1990) conduct a quasi-experimental design method with
multiple time-interval pretest and posttest measures; they found that while telework­
ing reduces absenteeism, it has no effect on turnover rate. Ezra and Deckman (1996)
argue that organizations that support family-friendly programs display higher satisfac­
tion with regard to balance between work and family life.
The results of a local, state, and federal agencies survey show that 52% of agencies
have agreed that family-friendly policies decrease turnover rate (Durst, 1999). The
author argues that larger organizations with a higher proportion of women are likely to
suggest more family-friendly policies. Selden and Moynihan (2000) analyze the deter­
minants o f voluntary turnover at the state level with unionization, size, payment, and
job training. They find that on-site child care has an inverse relationship with volun­
tary turnover at the state level. J. Kim and Wiggins (2011) state that turnover intention
of public employees is largely influenced by both family-friendly policies and tradi­
tional economic benefits. S. Y. Lee and Hong (2011) conclude that child care subsidies
have an inverse effect on voluntary turnover rate.
S. Y. Lee and Hong (2011) define turnover rate as “the number of employees who
leave voluntarily during the period, divided by the average number of employees dur­
ing the same period” (p. 875). According to Kellough and Osuna (1995), total turnover
is typically the sum of voluntary turnover, involuntary turnover, and retirement. Here,
voluntary turnover indicates the loss of talented employees by their own choice. Most
studies envisaged a lower turnover rate as an indicator of effective public organizations
 c
QJ
o E -o to
♦J c E QJ QJ

£ £ ai
o 1 3 i
_A < <«=
— E 2 o 5 S.
£
=J .* oQ . ?§ _>> ■“*- « I l - i
*5 E
X o ^ ° J
o
3
O ’ CL E
(D O I I +-»
u
CD t i u
> CD CD to
o ° 3 4-> DO cD y it DO OJ
'55 *3 QJ E c o td
2 w o 2 .5 " QJ
Q . « E > 4_. DO
o c E S U CD
« I; u Cl CD a) S > CD C
u B - g a> c
QJ _ CL S H DO CD O
M S -g
CD
w X g -S g . ^ QJ
C* 00
cd • i 5
CL ■5 a .-o s 8
k - e s §
CD <D E CD J2 x 2 .9 - x
_c c
*->
co
>
> o 7:3 E
o
« :
x
f- CD
— J= C co cd Q . QJ cd cd
CO <« CD 2 5 g c ° - co QJ
U
QJ u c m ^ — i_
o .0 -o g 3 CD rt
QJ -n t CD O
co QJ
W
-c
sj O
o \
X —
_o ;e y
CD 2 S
CL X I
s s S jjj 1 8 E cd 0 CD
c
.2 ? x
2

,QJ aj co _c C -C CO cj
u
to
O
---- Q_ w cd ,<u 2
*5 •- E
QJ O ■2 x u 0
cu > - u . E .y -o _a O 0
CD LJ E i_ DO cd
QJ ±*->
J X CL C ^-v C .t i
$ 5 DO to O
CO n W) — fl>
1 8 QJ ' n y « P t S E ~
c
cj C o .b o
l -S CD cd CO Q. Cl u > u D LL. C
2 ° o
CO £ Q. CO
CO -----
QJ
So u
_0 CO
ig o <
O " ■ g E QJ > u
X i_
o DO o i t
y 2
-C O u u 0 0
*-> XI XI XI X
0 z X o
C C it 0
Z rd cd QJ < X E
a : z LI­

c
0
o £ ’*-» DO
_QJ cd c
_0 O N
_Q CD >V
03 Q . '*-> 'c 1_
X E QJ cd O
0
>
QJ c u . E E S L.
ns 5 c £? D
y « 0 LO CO
c O
O -c § § ■S 1 E? CD X *.
ON
ON
i_
0
C 0 -C
>- o °
O 1
o 00 « - 5 00 t
r cd on 0
D ON
0 □ j S a . l L 3 c vO CD CO
ON E
5 CO — CO z
"o
Q_
X >
XI "rt <u
0 ® c ^
X -O
C .2 .2 «
X
QJ i_
CL Cd
o 5 E O
y k
0 > E >0
D rt T
M <u

H 6 ^

.£ " 0 E
C
0
v)
CD
(D
c
L
3
DO
o
_>> X >s
cd co
z _c L. E =
c 15 £j co Q_
o 4S °
s •? ^QJ _D 0
u to 4-1 QJ X Z?
* i
_0 XI
CD — O — O
w cd
c
r C J u a

_Q OJ
« -n .y o L
( ii
.2
c
«
u
« L
«
X
X
-C
(j
■5 = ° ° * ^
X
1
0
CO *4_l
QJ to c £ Si Si £ X X
E -§ x 0 x
O D D > 0 - < < U 5 o.

o
c o QJ
o o o X
c 0^
£2
N o rt o
"l .
0 O
_

-c o V tm
a § l a o 3 0
cd __
<N l l E CS Z 1/1 ^
0
Q)
“E i S' X
QJ
DO
M ^ E "-■ 00 o
-Q
cD
Q. X
0 ) 0 - c *3 §1.-0 o
_c
CO
^
l l
CD 2 - o Z 0
Q_
co I" g a
526
 oo CD X
aj
OLS regression W o rk -fa m ily support programs improve
cd 02 U
•— C Z3
rt ;y E (d
cd o E
LL 02 CL
2 s U X
o 0 c "a 102
c c cd c Q_
cd _Q
cd 02
L. -X
£ 2 4—
cd cd O u
> CD
oo O
00 u
_CD c ccd
E C D 0 E ^ _a3
(9
_ 02 X X L c £
bOX 02 oo o 0 O
O c _£Z cc t :
L 02 u
CL Cl oo c!_d C D 3 E
Cl -> «
^ 9 -X i_ b Oc cd
u O
productivity.

0 o 0 x
Cl ♦c3 g E _o
d cd -O Q_
QJ X N -o o E
I <4= _D X 'c 0)
02 c cd bO
— c X 02 L. bO c “O
E -O® «c d o
L
Cd 5Z i 0 cd

• - tr 4->
oo '&0
'bO
c ^ O C _o co
. 2 fN - o . 2
ifl . . m w oj X3 ’«
~rj />
vi
nSfll 00
oo
w — g oo
• • £0 a 00 1/1
£ £
-S w>
2SLS

O s - C O s - O i- m i l
H 1— <N O

O c0d
0 L2
France, Germany,

_c
U u X0
Firm-level data in

X
C cd
cd ^
CO
Q_ 3 CO c
CO ZJ
- <3 Q_ CL cd oo
E £ £ *4- L> L.
o xi £ 0 CD -C(U
xi a>
txo .i£ -C x: X < E u
£ NO >u 0) c0d)
<
ZJ o L LLI 1-
^ D o D
LO
l_ CN OO

CD
performance

U X-1
4 o
c ’> E
cd E £
E S_ ‘4-4 cd
4-»
td r> m L (U u cd c
bo O CD
U oo _U > X
M arket

cd _ o L- “O _o
O X 02 c po <u
c n 0 E "£ £ CL
b. O c s=
E
6 " h- o | -
Difficulty o f family-
friendly policies
friendly policies

o _>>
JO X •
Family-friendly

cd c X
W o rk-fa m ily

X L.
c 00 bO a> 02
0 _C
02
E bO l I E
balance

X v+r
nE cd
i_ d> x
"5 a>
index

bO CD
0
-9
_c "I O
1 L X U Q 5 O
^ 02
cd CL <12 00 c Q_ oo
LL LL D
E E
Shepard (2004)

5
X X o
c c □C
C lifton and

cd cd
X
<D d) c
QJ O n " CD
_l O
<d o
O
O O § °
i <N ±
cd cd
c i-
zo CS
527
 0
XI

Family-friendly policies have a negative

c
GO rd
X E
O S_
£ €
3 *«= 0 O 0
TO 00 > *i3 Q-
0 B .2 g J2 w 02
Findings

& .y
0 O 0 4-» I |
£ Q. Q_ fd O ‘ .9- a
•- Z GO Q_ « -C 02
0
-c 2 =5 01 «
-^ g Q-
~o c0) C X
td rt C
u
E * c
L. V) fd
c 0 c o 0 ) o
O > g *£ 3 O > >- E_
s
•3 .ti 02 X *3 > O
CL 02
fd 'C i -n oo — 'll
0 O c O 02 a;
s- 0- rt O O Jo CL I— D_
Methodology

Note. OLS - ordinary least squares; 2SLS = tw o-stage least square; KWPS = Korea W orkp la ce Panel Survey.
m 0)
Logistic

t X
GO O
g E
2004 Federal Human

_Q2
-O _02
a “3
_Q C
rd
x
02 C
GO 02 b:
< 02 "S O
t
Data

3 h*» -Q S
OO ^ C wO
o & *
C ^ 02 (N C t o e
fd oT X „ 3
02 tJ- p $: c lo o o ^ g
Q- O § C 02 o
02 o 8" JjCJ _? 5
U X fN X oo 02 fN
O
D fN
Dependent

02
variables

U
c
T urno ver

X o
2 '
t.
02 02
GO Q -
<
2 00 j>>
.02
Child care policies

c|j X £
GO 02 ■_
Independent

C X c oo 45
variables

c 0 _Q i_ 0
_Q 3 o £
00
3
£ 02 00 _fd U Ul 4-
0
E S E > _02 rd
c E
0 0
L > > _0
rd s_
!_ o fd X
3 O O (d fd
L. 3
O u u _0 o rdX
GO £ C 0 c c 0
02 s_ _c
care

o O X £ u -C
s_ 02 *2> u Xrd
0- u X 0 0
CL 02 40->
2 to L. 0 Z fd 0
0
oo
1- < H U CL 1- <
Kim and Wiggins

X _
Authors

528
Bae and Goodman 529

(Selden & Moynihan, 2000). An increase in the turnover rate leads to a rise in organi­
zational costs as a result of recruiting and training new employees and also to the
time-cost relationship in acquiring job skills (Kellough & Osuna, 1995).

Hypothesis 1: The number of family-friendly policies is inversely associated with

the turnover rate of a public organization.

Productivity
There is some evidence showing that productivity of employee is enhanced when fam­
ily-friendly policies are implemented. A research study of a Fortune 500 company
with 120 employees found that 97% of employees and supervisors reported that fam­
ily-friendly programs such as teleworking increases productivity (Riley & McCloskey,
1997).
J. S. Kim and Campagna (1981) also suggested that employees under a flextime
program display a reduction in the number of unpaid absences and an increase in per­
formance efficiency. They analyze a pre-intervention measure for both the experimen­
tal and the control group using 353 employees in a county welfare agency. Results
from 527 U.S. firms show that organizations with more extensive family-friendly poli­
cies present higher performance at the organizational level (Perry-Smith & Blum,
2000). Organizations with a greater range of family-friendly policies show higher lev­
els of organizational performance, market performance, and profit-sales growth. They
suggest that family-friendly policies such as flexible schedules can relieve family con­
cerns. S. Y. Lee and Hong (2011) state that child care subsidies and alternative work
schedules both have significantly positive effects on organizational performance.

Hypothesis 2 The number of family-friendly policies is positively associated with

the performance of a public organization.

According to Koch and McGrath (1998), organizational performance is measured

by labor productivity. They argue that human capital delivers value to the organization
and that highly productive people can increase its profits. Labor productivity is defined
by Samuelson and Nordhaus (1985) as the “total output divided by labor inputs” (p.
980). Based on these arguments, this article uses labor productivity, as proxy indica­
tors of organizational performance.

Organizational Infuences
Several studies have examined that women have a higher turnover rate than men in
organizations (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Lewis & Park, 1989). Women are more likely
than men to quit their jobs due to family responsibilities and child care (Keith &
McWilliams, 1999; Sicherman, 1996). Previous studies have also stated that the
female proportion in an organization has an inverse relationship with organizational
performance as this may cause conflict and lack of interaction among groups (Pelled,
 530 Public Personnel M anagem ent 43(4)

Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Some explained that employ­
ees prefer to build relationships within the same gender groups, but they have trouble
communicating with different gender groups in an organization (Williams & O ’Reilly
1998).

Hypothesis 3a: There is a positive relationship between the percentage of females

and organizational turnover.
Hypothesis 3b: There is an inverse relationship between the percentage of females
and organizational performance.

A number of studies have confirmed that salary is an important determinant of

turnover rate (Selden & Moynihan, 2000; Utgoff, 1983) and has a positive relationship
with organizational performance (Dex, Smith, & Winter, 2001). In addition, studies
have also suggested that higher salaries can reduce turnover rate (Shaw, Delery,
Jenkins, & Gupta, 1998). J. Kim and Wiggins (2011), however, showed that pay grades
are inversely but not significantly related to turnover intention. Rational choice theory
assumes that individuals try to maximize their utility by increasing monetary incen­
tives. Organizations also adopt traditional rewards systems to increase productivity
through monetary rewards (Baker, Jensen, & Murphy, 1988). The studies assume that
rational choice theory supports a positive relationship between rewards and organiza­
tional performance (Alchian & Demsetz, 1972; Harris & Raviv, 1978; Lazear &
Rosen, 1981; Vroom, 1964).

Hypothesis 4a: There is an inverse relationship between rewards and organiza­

tional turnover.
Hypothesis 4b: There is a positive relationship between rewards and organiza­
tional performance.

As union aim to enhance the workplace environment and its working conditions,
unionization is an important predictor of turnover rate in an organization (Selden &
Moynihan, 2000). Employees have more incentive to keep working because of the
supporting seniority offered by unions (Mitchell, 1989). Several studies have reckoned
that unionization is inversely associated with turnover rate (Blau & Kahn, 1981;
Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Huselid, 1995; Selden & Moynihan, 2000). However, in con­
trast, Kellough and Osuna (1995) argue an opposite relationship from that presented in
previous studies. Union presence also affects organizational performance. Estimates
of the model obtained by U.S. manufacturing data show that union presence signifi­
cantly increases labor productivity (Brown & Medoff, 1978). Other scholars have
examined whether teacher unions hinder educational performance, finding a positive
relationship between the presence of teacher unions and students’ performance on
exams (Carini, Powell, & Steelman, 2000).

Hypothesis 5a: There is an inverse relationship between union presence and orga­
nizational turnover.
Bae and Goodman 531

Hypothesis 5b: There is a positive relationship between union presence and orga­
nizational performance.

Durst (1999) states that larger organizations offer more family-friendly policies.
McCurdy, Newman, and Lovrich (2002) also mention that organization size has a
positive relationship with the adoption and implementation of family-friendly policy.
According to Dalton, Todor, Spendolini, Fielding, and Porter (1980), organization size
has an inverse relationship with organizational performance. Small organizations can
reduce costs and save time through face-to-face communication between workers
whereas large organizations face more complexity and deal with more information due
to formal systems and procedures. Accordingly, we expect an inverse relationship
between size and performance in organizations.

Hypothesis 6a: There is an inverse relationship between organization size and

organizational turnover.
Hypothesis 6b: There is an inverse relationship between organization size and
organizational performance.

Data and Method

S a m p le

This study investigates the association between the degree of family-friendly policies
and organizational performance, voluntary turnover rate, and labor productivity at the
organizational level using the KWPS data. The Korea Labor Institute collected data
from a sample of establishments in South Korea from 2005 to 2009. These data include
organizations nationwide with a size of 30 or more employees. A stratified sampling
technique is used. The survey data were collected by conducting interviews with
human resource managers and employee representatives of the organizations. This
study uses human resource managers’ survey data and financial statistics of
organizations.
The sample of this KWPS comprises 5,377 establishments, which are composed of
general private firms, public institutions, banks and insurance companies, communi­
cation services companies, and electric and gas companies. This study focuses on pub­
lic institutions.
The sample of this study comprises 158 public organizations, selected by the crite­
ria stated under the Act on Management of Government Affiliated Agencies. The 158
public organizations in this study are state-owned enterprises with data from 2005 to
2009. Public organizations include government-invested institutions, government-
funded institutions, government-assisted commission institutions, subsidiaries, gov­
ernment refunded institutions, state-owned enterprises and other business innovation
institutions designated by the Steering Committee for Government Affiliated Agencies.
Among these, 85 organizations are located in Seoul. See Table 3 for further explana­
tions and examples of public organizations in Korea.
532 P u b lic P e r s o n n e l M a n a g e m e n t 4 3 ( 4 )

T a b le 3. Classification o f Public Institutions in South Korea.

Classification Classification criteria Examples

State-owned Institutions whose self-generated

enterprise (28) revenue accounts fo r at least
50% o f total revenue3
Market-based state- Institutions whose self-generating Korea Gas Corp., Korea
owned enterprise accounts fo r at least 85% o f National Oil Corp., Power
total revenue (with a minimum companies, Incheon Int’l
asset size o f US$ 1.9 billion) A irp o rt Corp., Ports
authorities
Quasi-market State-owned enterprises Korea Minting & Security
based state- excluding market-based state- Printing Corp., Korean
owned enterprise owned enterprises Tourism Organization, Korea
Racing A u th o rity
Quasi-government Institutions whose self-generated
institution (83) revenue accounts fo r less than
50% o f total revenue3
Fund-management- Institutions that manage (o r are Korea Teachers Pension,
based quasi­ commissioned to manage) funds Government Employees
government in accordance w ith the National Pension Service, Korea
institution Finance A ct Sports Promotion, A rts
Council Korea, Korea Trade
Insurance Corp.
Commissioned- Quasi-government institutions Korea Elevator Safety Institute,
service-based oth e r than fund-management- National Information Society
quasi-government based quasi-government Agency, Korea International
institutions institutions Broadcasting Foundation
Non-classified public Public institutions excluding Korea Investment Corp.,
institutions ( 177) state-owned enterprises and University Hospitals,
quasi-government institutions Universities, Research
institutes

Source. Adapted fro m Korea Institute o f Public Finance (2012, pp. I I , 35-43).
“Self-generated revenue refers to institutional revenue excluding contributions, subsidies, and o th e r
governm ent financial support and is calculated after being weighted according to the supply m onopoly
and mandatory usage per type o f revenue.

Measures
D e p e n d e n t variables. This article uses two dependent variables which are indicators of
organizational performance, voluntary turnover rate and labor productivity. Previous
research on family-friendly policies use voluntary turnover rate as a dependent vari­
able (Kellough & Osuna, 1995; J. Kim & Wiggins, 2011; S. Y. Lee & Hong, 2011;
Selden & Moynihan, 2000). The second dependent variable is labor productivity. Sev­
eral studies have employed labor productivity as the proxy indicator of organizational
performance (Koch & McGrath, 1998; Samuelson & Nordhaus, 1985).
B ae a n d G o o d m a n 533

T a b le 4 . Distribution of Family-Friendly Policies.

2005 2007 2009

Number of family-
friendly policies Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

1 1 1.23 0 0.00 1 1.85

2 2 2.47 1 4.35 0 0.00
3 7 8.64 0 0.00 2 3.70
4 15 18.52 2 8.70 2 3.70
5 2 2.47 1 4.35 3 5.56
6 5 6.17 1 4.35 7 12.96
7 4 4.94 0 0.00 2 3.70
8 7 8.64 3 13.04 4 7.41
9 7 8.64 1 4.35 0 0.00
10 7 8.64 1 4.35 4 7.41
11 5 6.17 2 8.70 6 1l.l 1
12 13 16.05 2 8.70 8 14.81
13 6 7.41 0 0.00 6 1l.l 1
14 — — 5 21.74 3 5.56
15 — — 2 8.70 5 9.26
16 — — 2 8.70 1 1.85
Total 81 100 23 100 53 100

In this study, voluntary turnover is measured by dividing the number of voluntarily

resignations in a given year by the average number of employees during that period.
Labor productivity is calculated using the log of annual sales per employee each year.
In South Korea, firms track the number of sales and revenues raised for each organiza­
tion (Korea Institute of Public Finance, 2012; see Table 3).

In d e p e n d e n t v a ria b le s . The Family-friendly policies variable is measured by the number

of family-friendly policies in an organization. Perry-Smith and Blum (2000) used a
bundle of family-friendly policies as the independent variable rather than using specific
family-friendly policies. This study also uses a bundle of family-friendly policies stipu­
lated by law including maternity leave, child care leave, on-site child care, menstrual
leave (unpaid or paid), breast-feeding time at work, restriction of night duties, restric­
tion from work during holidays, restriction of overtime work, restriction of harmful job
duties, opportunity for work conversion, and restriction of harmful job duties until 1
year after childbirth. Other policies include parental leave, child care benefits, breast­
feeding space at work, prenatal health check-up leave, miscarriage leave, and infertility
leave. Maternity leave and child care leave are the most frequently adopted policies in
South Korea. The variable ranges from 0 to 16 with a mean of 8.89.
Table 4 shows the distribution of family-friendly policies of South Korea’s public
organizations from 2005 to 2009. This distribution shows that the data are not skewed.
There is a moderate correlation (r = .32) between size of the organization and the
534 Public Personnel M anagem ent 43(4)

T a b le 5. Summary Statistics fo r Variables.

Variables Measure # M SD M inim um M axim um

D ep e nd e n t variables
T u rn o v e r rate Log percentage o f 158 1.391 1.301 -1 .9 4 6 3.588
em ployees w h o
le ft vo lu n ta rily
habor p ro d u c tiv ity Log o f revenue per 158 5.172 1.109 2.223 8.237
em ployee
Fam ily-friendly policies N u m b e r o f fam ily- 158 8.892 3.898 0 16.000
frie n d ly policies in
organizations
% o f females % o f female 158 28.61 18.34 0.297 93.288
em ployees
Salary Log sta rtin g salary 158 7.837 0.181 7.313 8.294
fo r college
graduates
U nion Union w orkplace = 1 158 0.772 0.421 0 1.000
Seoul Seoul = 1 158 0.538 0.500 0 1.000
O rganization size Log o f th e n u m ber 158 5.722 1.357 3.401 9.222
o f employees
O rganization age Years 158 23.791 16.053 3.000 107.000

number o f family-friendly policies (see appendix for correlations). Although the Labor
Standard Act was revised in 2001 to extend paid maternity leave of private companies
from 60 to 90 days, most public sector organizations had three or fewer family-friendly
policies in place in the early 2000s. In the late 2000s, we found an increase in the
number of organizations that have begun to adopt more family-friendly policies.

C o n tro l v a ria b le s . To enhance generalizability, this article includes several control vari­
ables derived from previous studies: Percentage o f females is the proportion of female
employees in an organization (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Lewis & Park, 1989; Pelled et
al., 1999; Tsui et ah, 1992). Salary is the logarithm of the starting salary for a college
graduate. The KWPS does not include the average pay of employees of each company,
and thus this research uses the starting salary for college graduates instead of the aver­
age salary of each organization (Dex et ah, 2001; Selden & Moynihan, 2000; Utgoff,
1983). Union is a dummy variable, indicating whether an organization has a union or
not (B. H. Lee & Kim, 2009). Organization age refers to the number of years since
establishment (B. H. Lee & Kim, 2009; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000). Organization
size is the logarithm of the total number of employees in the organization (Dalton et
ah, 1980; den Dulk, 2005; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000). There is also a control variable
for the organizations in Seoul. Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables
in this research. The variables used in the analysis include the means and standard
deviations.
8 ae a n d G oodm an 535

T a b le 6. Dependent Variable: T urnover Rate— Random Effects Model.

V ariable M odel 1 M odel 2 M od e l 3 M od e l 4 M od e l 5 M odel 6

F am ily-frie n d ly 0.0142 0.0155 0.0212 0.021 1 0.033 0 .0 3 5 1 *

policies (0.0210) (0.0210) (0.0209) (0.0210) (0.0208) (0.0208)
% o f fem ales 0 .0 3 9 6 *** 0 .0 3 8 2 *** 0 .0 3 7 0 *** 0 .0 3 7 3 *** 0 .0 3 4 4 * ** 0 .0 3 4 7 * **
(0.0055) (0.0058) (0.0057) (0.0057) (0.0055) (0.0055)
Log salary -0 .3 8 7 0 0.0363 0.0861 0.1610 0.1930
(0.5270) (0.5380) (0.5510) (0.5320) (0.5310)
U n io n iz a tio n - 0 .6 1 2 0 * * * - 0 .6 3 1 0 * * * - 0 .4 0 7 0 * - 0 .3 6 9 0
(0.2280) (0.2330) (0.2340) (0.2360)
Seoul -0 .0 9 2 2 -0 .0 5 2 9 - 0 .0 2 5 8
(0.2010) (0.1920) (0.1930)
O rg a n iz a tio n size - 0 .2 6 6 0 * * * - 0 .2 4 9 0 * * *
(0.0775) (0.0783)
O rg a n iz a tio n age -0 .0 0 7 2
(0.0056)
C o n s ta n t - 0 .9 0 1 0 * * * - 0 .8 6 7 0 * * * - 0 .9 2 9 0 * * * - 0 .9 3 3 0 * * * - 0 .8 6 6 0 * * * - 0 .7 0 3 0 * * *
(0.1200) (0.1290) (0.1280) (0.1280) (0.1240) (0.1760)
n 158 158 158 158 158 158

Note. T h e c o e fficie n ts and standard e rro rs a re in parenthesis. A ll variables a re c e n tere d .

*p < . I . **p < .05. * * * p < .0 i .

M o d e ls

A panel data analysis has been used to find the association between family-friendly
policies and turnover and organizational performance. Panel data set over a cross sec­
tion enhances flexibility by taking into account behavior differences across individuals
(Greene, 1999). Two options are available for panel data analysis, namely, the fixed
effects or random effects model (Greene, 1999). Results of the Hausman test deter­
mine whether the random effects or the fixed effects model should be used. We use the
random effects model to estimate the parameters. The random effects model is gener­
ally more efficient and therefore preferred (Greene, 1999).

R e s u lts

Table 6 provides the results of the random effect model with the turnover rate as the
dependent variable. As dependent variables are not normally distributed, this article
conducts log transformation on turnover rate and labor rate productivity. The findings
of the analysis are largely as expected, with some exceptions. This study hypothesizes
that the number of family-friendly policies is inversely associated with voluntary turn­
over in public organizations. The model, however, does not show significant effects of
family-friendly policies on turnover rates. This result does not support the hypothesis
that the degree of family-friendly policies is inversely associated with turnover rate.
Moreover, Model 6 reports a significant positive relationship between the number of
family-friendly policies and turnover rate in public organizations at the 0.1 level when
controlling for other variables. This finding conflicts with previous studies. Even with
536 Public Personnel M anagem ent 43(4)

family-friendly policies, there is still turnover. This unexpected finding could indicate
that agencies with high turnover rates implement more family-friendly policies in an
attempt to lower turnover.
In addition, the percentage of females has a significantly positive effect on the turn­
over rate of employees at the 0.01 level. This finding does support the hypothesis that
the percentage of female employees is positively associated with turnover rate and is
also consistent with previous research (Keith & McWilliams, 1999; Sicherman, 1996).
As mentioned before, the results show that female workers in South Korea quit their
jobs more often compared with men. There are strong cultural and societal pressures
for women to stay home with the children (M. S. Kim, 2013).
Furthermore, unionization and organization size both show a significantly inverse
relationship with the turnover rate at the 0.01 level. We find that turnover rate is
explained by unionization or organization size rather than family-friendly policies.
According to Selden and Moynihan (2000), the presence of union affects turnover rate
because it enhances workplace environment and working condition. Dalton et al.
(1980) also mentioned that small organizations reduce costs and save time through
face-to-face communication. The results of our findings are consistent with the previ­
ous studies. We can conclude that traditional economic benefits have a significant
effect on reducing the turnover rate, but family-friendly policies do not lead to a sig­
nificant decrease in turnover rate.
Table 7 demonstrates the results of the random effects model, which examines the
effect of family-friendly policies on labor productivity. The results show that family-
friendly policies have a significantly positive relationship with organizational level
productivity at the 0.05 level, which conforms to the hypothesis. These results support
the rational choice approach, which states that employers are able to increase produc­
tivity and profits by providing family-friendly policies (Seyler et al., 1995). The result
is consistent with previous research that claims that family-friendly policies have a
positive effect on organization-level labor productivity (Konrad & Mangel, 2000;
Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000).
In addition, the regression coefficient for unionization is statistically significant at
the 0.01 level on labor productivity. This finding is also consistent with previous
research, which shows a positive relationship between unionization and performance.

D is c u s s io n a n d C o n c l u s i o n

This study analyzes the effects of family-friendly policies to performance at the orga­
nizational level in South Korea’s public organizations, by analyzing turnover rate and
labor productivity. Based on the rational choice approach, we hypothesize that the
degree of family-friendly policies in an organization is inversely associated with turn­
over rate and positively associated with productivity. However, we find that family-
friendly policies do not have significant effects on decreasing turnover rates.
Furthermore, we find notable effects on increasing labor productivity in the public
workplace. In addition, unionization has shown to decrease turnover rate, and is posi­
tively associated with labor productivity in public organizations. The proportion of
female workers has a positive relationship with turnover rate in organizations.
Boe a n d G oodm an
537

Table 7. D e p e nd e n t Variable: Labor P ro d u ctivity— Random Effects M odel.

M odel 1 M odel 2 M odel 3 M odel 4 M odel 5 M odel 6

0.0 3 2 5 ** 0.0316** 0.0288** 0.0292** 0.0288* 0 .0299**

Family-
frie n d ly (0.0147) (0.0149) (0.0147) (0.0148) (0.0149) (0.0150)
policies
-0 .0 0 2 9 -0 .0 0 1 5 0.0001 -0 .0 0 0 4 -0 .0 0 0 2 -0 .0 0 0 2
% o f females -

(0.0052) (0.0053) (0.0053) (0.0054) (0.0054) (0.0054)

0.4940 0.2710 0.2400 0.2390 0.2700

Log salary
(0.3960) (0.4030) (0.4120) (0.4140) (0.4160)
0.3430* 0.3540* 0.3410* 0.3550*
U n io n iza tio n
(0.1860) (0.1890) (0.1960) (0.1970)
0.0913 0.0906 0.1080
Seoul
(0.2010) (0.2020) (0.2020)
0.0193 0.0307
O rganization
size (0.0794) (0.0800)

O rganization -0 .0 0 5 3

age (0.0049)

-0 .3 7 5 0 * * * -0 .4 2 2 0 * * * -0 .6 5 2 0 * * * -0 .6 6 0 0 * * * -0 .6 5 6 0 * * * -0 .5 4 9 0 * * *
Cons
(0.1130) (0.1180) (0.1740) (0.1750) (0.1760) (0.2030)

158 158 158 158 158 158

n

Note. The coefficients and standard errors are in parenthesis. All variables are centered.
*p < .1. **p < .05. * * * p < .01.

Our analysis reveals that family-friendly policies are beneficial for increasing labor
productivity of employees in public organizations by balancing work and family life.
In traditional research regarding reward and performance, salary has a significant
motivational effect on increasing organizational performance in the private sector. In
the public sector, however, work-family policies and family-friendly policies have
significant effects on raising organizational performance. Salaries showed no effect in
reducing turnover or increasing productivity.
Based on this result, we expect that organizations that have a higher proportion of
female workers will have a higher turnover rate. According to Women’s Lives through
Statistics in 2013, 20.3% of female employees in South Korea have a career break
ostensibly to take care of their child(ren) (Statistics Korea, 2013). Furthermore, even
though the government and companies officially provide family-friendly policy to
employees, women feel reluctant to use these policies due to the patriarchal and hier­
archical culture that is common in Asian cultures (Hofstede, 1991; M. S. Kim, 2013;
Yoon, 2001). In a hierarchical culture, employees are expected to comply with a top-
down decision process to focus on organizational efficiency. A supervisor may regard
a subordinate who is claiming various family-friendly policies to be less elficient than
other employees. Due to this fact, employees may be unwilling to utilize family-
friendly benefits in this environment (Bae & Lawler, 2000).
 538 Public Personnel M anagem ent 43(4)

In addition, social discrimination and shouldering the burden o f child care explains
why women increasingly tend to resign from their jobs. The correlation table in the
appendix reports a strong statistically significant relationship between the percentage
o f females in an organization and the number o f family-friendly policies. However,
additional family-friendly policies do not necessarily translate into reduced turnover,
especially among females. Further exploration is needed to assess the relative strength
o f each o f the family-friendly policies that are utilized. Knowing which policies have
the largest direct impact on organizational turnover and productivities can be informa­
tive, efficient, and effective.
This research uses data pertaining to organizations in South Korea. The empirical
finding o f this study should take into consideration the hierarchical culture within orga­
nizations in Korea and note that although family-friendly policies are provided, employ­
ees may choose not to use the benefit due to cultural aspects. To further support
the conclusion o f this study, future research should examine the relationship between
family-friendly policies and organizational performance in more diverse cultural
backgrounds.

A pp end ix

Correlation Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. T urnover rate 1.00

2. Labor productivity -.1 4 1.00
3. Family-friendly policy -.0 7 .14 1.00
4. % o f females .57 -.15 -.0 4 1.00
5. Salary -.23 .32 .07 -.3 9 1.00
6. Union -.33 .16 .18 -.1 9 .34 1.00
7. Seoul -.0 0 -.01 -.0 2 -.0 6 .12 -.1 7 1.00
8. Organization size -.43 .08 .32 -.2 5 .21 .38 .07 1.00
9. Organization age -.21 -.03 .13 -.05 .13 .25 .11 .28 1.00

Note. Sample size - 158. A ll correlations above the absolute value 0 .2 1 are significant at .0 1 fo r a tw o -
tailed test.

D eclaration o f C onflicting Interests

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

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Bae and G oodm an 539

References
Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organiza­
tion. The American Economic Review, 62, 777-795.
Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm
performance in an emerging economy. Academy o f Management Journal, 43, 502-517.
Baker, G. P., Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. (1988). Compensation and incentives: Practice vs.
theory. The Journal o f Finance, 43, 593-616.
Barker, J. (1995). Family ties: Family-friendly policies are no longer a luxury-they are a com­
petitive advantage. Sales & Marketing Management, 147, 18-24.
Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). Effects of human resource system on manufacturing perfor­
mance and turnover. Academy o f Management Journal, 37, 670-687.
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (1981). Race and sex differences in quits by young workers.
Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 34, 563-577.
Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swansberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study o f the changing
workforce. New York, NY : Families and Work Institute.
Brown, C., & Medoff, J. (1978). Trade unions in the production process. Journal o f Political
Economy, 86, 355-378.
Capowski, G. (1996). The joy of flex. Management Review, 85, 12-18.
Carini, R. M., Powell, B., & Steelman, L. C. (2000). Do teacher unions hinder educational per­
formance? Lessons learned from state SAT and ACT scores. Harvard Educational Review,
70, 437-467.
Cayer, N. J. (2003). Public employee benefits and the changing nature of the workforce. In
Public personnel administration: Problems and prospects (4th ed). (pp. 167-179). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Clifton, T. J., & Shepard, E. (2004). Work and family programs and productivity: Estimates
applying a production function model. International Journal o f Manpower, 25, 714-728.
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with
implications for research. Academy o f Management Review, 11, 55-70.
Dalton, D. R., & Mesch, D. J. (1990). The impact of flexible scheduling on employee attendance
and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 370-387.
Dalton, D. R„ Todor, W. D„ Spendolini, M. J., Fielding, G. J., & Porter, L. W. (1980).
Organization structure and performance: A critical review. Academy o f Management
Review, 5, 49-64.
den Dulk, L. (2005). Workplace work-family arrangements: A study and explanatory frame­
work of differences between organizational provisions in different welfare states. In S.
Poelman (Ed.), Work andfamily: International research on work andfamily (pp. 169-191).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dex, S., Smith, C., & Winter, S. (2001). Effects o f family-friendly policies on business perfor­
mance (Working Paper No. 22). Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge, Judge Institute
of Management.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomor­
phism and collective reality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,
48, 147-160.
Durst, S. L. (1999). Assessing the effect of family-friendly programs on public organizations.
Review o f Public Personnel Administration, 19, 19-33.
Ezra, M., & Deckman, M. (1996). Balancing work and family responsibilities: Flextime and
child care in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 56, 174-179.
540 Public Personnel M anagem ent 43(4)

French, P. E., & Goodman, D. (2012). An assessment o f the current and future state of
human resource management at the local government level. Review o f Public Personnel
Administration, 32, 87-99.
French, P. E., Goodman, D., & Morrison, M. (in press). An empirical evaluation of the influence
o f descriptive representation on human resource practices at the local government level.
Journal o f Public Management <£ Social Policy, 20(1).
Frye, N. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family
conflict, family-work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 19, 197-220.
Goodstein, J. D. (1994). Institutional pressure and strategic responsiveness: Employer involve­
ment in work-family issues. Academy o f Management Journal, 37, 350-382.
Greene, W. H. (1999). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource
policies: The impact o f family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents
and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271-288.
Halpem, D. F. (2005). How time-flexible work policies can reduce stress, improve health, and
save money. Stress & Health, 21, 157-168.
Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (1978). Some results on incentive contracts with applications to edu­
cation and employment, health insurance, and law enforcement. The American Economic
Review, 68, 20-30.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software o f the mind. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resources management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy o f Management Journal, 38,
635-672.
Johnson, A. A. (1995). The business case for work-family programs. Journal o f Accountancy,
180, 53-59.
Keith, K., & McWilliams, A. (1999). The returns to mobility and job search by gender. Industrial
& Labor Relations Review, 52, 460-477.
Kellough, J. E., & Osuna, W. (1995). Cross-agency comparisons of quit rates in the federal
service another look at the evidence. Review o f Public Personnel Administration, 15, 58-68.
Kim, J. S., & Campagna, A. F. (1981). Effects of flextime on employee attendance and perfor­
mance: A field experiment. Academy o f Management Journal, 24, 729-741.
Kim, J., & Wiggins, M. E. (2011). Family-friendly human resource policy: Is it still working in
the public sector? Public Administration Review, 71, 728-739.
Kim, M. S. (2013). A more diverse workplace: Increasing women's power in Korea. Heidrick
& Struggles. Retrieved from http://www.heidrick.com/Knowledge-Center/PubIication/A-
more-diverse-workplace-increasing-womens-power-in-Korea
Kim, T., & Go, I. (2001). Plans to facilitating family-friendly employment policies. Seoul:
Korean Women’s Development Institute.
Koch, M. J., & McGrath, R. G. (1998). Improving labor productivity: Human resource manage­
ment policies do matter. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 335-354.
Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (2000). Research notes and commentaries the impact of work-life
programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1225-1237.
Korea Economic Institute of America. (2012). Korean women: You have a come a long way.
Retrieved from http://keia.org/publication/korean-women-you-have-come-long-way
Korea Institute of Public Finance. (2012). Public institutions in Korea. Seoul, Korea: Author.
Retreived from: http://eng.kipf.re.kr/publication/Publication_View.aspx?idx=520768
Bae and Goodman 541

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfac­
tion relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources
research. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 8 3 ,139-149.
Lambert, S. J. (2000). The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behav­
ior. Academy o f Management Journal, 43, 801-815.
Lawlor, J. (1996). The bottom line on work-family programs. Working Woman, 21(1-8), 54-60.
Lazear, E. P., & Rosen, S. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal
o f Political Economy, 89, 841-864.
Lee, B. H., & Kim, J. S. (2009). A study on organizational outcomes of family-friendly manage­
ment in Korea. Korean Journal o f Industrial Relations, 1 9 ,153-175.
Lee, B. H., & Kim, J. S. (2010). Is family-friendly management good for firms? The diffu­
sion and performance of family-friendly workplaces in South Korea. Journal o f Industrial
Relations, 52, 459-475.
Lee, S. Y., & Hong, J. H. (2011). Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact on
turnover and performance. Public Administration Review, 71, 870-879.
Lewis, G. B., & Park, K. (1989). Turnover rates in federal white-collar employment: Are women
more likely to quit than men? American Review o f Public Administration, 19, 13-28.
McCurdy, A. H., Newman, M. A., & Lovrich, N. P. (2002). Family-friendly workplace policy
adoption in general and special purpose local governments learning from the Washington
state experience. Review o f Public Personnel Administration, 22, 27-51.
McKinsey & Company. (2012). Women Matter: An Asian perspective. Retrieved from http://
www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey%20Offices/Japan/PDF/W omen_Matter_An_
Asian_perspective.ashx
Meyer, C. S., Mukerjee, S., & Sestero, A. (2001). Work-family benefits: Which ones maximize
profits? Journal o f Managerial Issues, 13, 28-44.
Mitchell, D. J. (1989). Human resource management: An economic approach. Boston, MA:
PWS-Kent Publishing.
Moon, S. Y., & Roh, J. (2010). Balancing work and family in South Korea’s public organi­
zations: Focusing on family-friendly policies in elementary school organizations. Public
Personnel Management, 39, 117-131.
Newman, M., & Matthews, K. (1999). Federal family-friendly workplace policies: Barriers to
effective implementation. Review o f Public Personnel Administration 19, 34-48.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). 2009 OECD employment
outlook: Tackling the jobs crisis. Paris, France: Author.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis
of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
1-28.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Work-family human resource bundles and perceived
organizational performance. Academy o f Management Journal, 43, 1107-1117.
Preece, D. C., & Filbeck, G. (1999). Family-friendly firms: Does it pay to care? Financial
Services Review, 8, 47-60.
Riley, F., & McCloskey, D. W. (1997). Telecommuting as a response to helping people balance
work and family. In S. Parasuraman & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and fam ­
ily: Challenges and choices fo r a changing world (pp. 133-142). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Samuelson, P., & Nordhaus, W. (1985). Economics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Selden, S. C., & Moynihan, D. P. (2000). A model of voluntary turnover in state government.
Review o f Public Personnel Administration, 20, 63-74.
Seyler, D. L., Monroe, P. A., & Garand, J. C. (1995). Balancing work and family: The role of
employer-supported child care benefits. Journal o f Family Issues, 16, 170-193.
542 Public Personnel M anagem ent 43(4)

Shaw, J. D., Delery, J., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Gupta, N. (1998). An organization-level analysis of
voluntary and involuntary turnover. Academy o f Management Journal, 41, 511-525.
Shepard, E. M., Ill, Clifton, T. J., & Kruse, D. (1996). Flexible work hours and productiv­
ity: Some evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Relations: A Journal of
Economy and Society, 35, 123-139.
Sicherman, N. (1996). Gender differences in departures from a large firm. Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, 49, 484-505.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2013). 2013 Employee benefits: An overview o f
employee benefits offerings in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/Research/
SurveyFindings/Articles/Documents/13-0245%202013_EmpBenefits_FNL.pdf
Statistics Korea. (2012). Population and housing census. Retrieved from http://kostat.go.kr/
portal/english/news/1/17/2/index.board
Statistics Korea. (2013). Women’s lives through statistics in 2013. Retrieved from http://
kostat.go.kr/portal/english/news/l/20/3/index.board?bmode=read&;bSeq=&aSeq=30762
8&pageNo= 1&rowNum=l 0&navCount=l 0&currPg=&sTarget=title&sTxt=
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O ’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and
organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.
Utgoff, K. C. (1983). Compensational levels and quit rates in the public sector. The Journal o f
Human Resources, 28, 394-406.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Williams, K. Y., & O ’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Forty years of diversity research: A review. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.
Yoon, J. (2001). The role o f structure and motivation for workplace empowerment: The case of
Korean employees. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64, 195-206.

A u t h o r B io g ra p h ie s

Kwang Bin Bae is a PhD candidate of public affairs at the University of Texas at Dallas. He is
primarily interested in human resource management and performance management. His research
topics include public service motivation, nonprofit organization, and program evaluation.

Doug Goodman is an associate professor of public affairs and the MPA director in the School
o f Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas. His research
and teachings interests include public human resource management, workforce planning, public
management, and other topics in public administration. He has published in numerous public
administration outlets. He is currently the associate editor for Practitioner Outreach of the
Review o f Public Personnel Administration.
Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.