Abstracts
Abstract
In a context of labour shortage, organizations face immense pressures to attract the best employees, and therefore deploy great efforts to increase their organizational attractiveness. In order to appeal to working women or younger workers, some organizations have implemented policies designed to balance work and family. Yet, the effect of such family-friendly practices (FFPs) on organizational attractiveness has seldom been investigated; this study endeavours to fill this gap.
The literature review led us to posit that organizations that have implemented FFPs are more attractive to applicants (H1). However, this main effect may be moderated by desire for segmentation (H2). Role segmentation refers to the separation of personal and professional roles, while role integration designates the blurring of boundaries between roles. For example, individuals with a high level of desire for segmentation may be more attracted to companies that offer segmentation strategies (e.g., flexible scheduling) than to companies that offer integration practices (e.g., telecommuting). Finally, the effect of corporate reputation is also tested (H3).
Using a policy-capturing research design, we tested the distinct effect of four FFPs (on-site child care; generous personal leaves; flexible scheduling; teleworking) on applicant attraction as well as the effects of organizational reputation and candidates’ desire for segmentation. Our results indicate that FFPs do have a main effect on attractiveness. More specifically, the two scenarios that received the highest scores on attractiveness were personal leaves and flexible scheduling. Contrary to expectations, we did not find a significant “Desire for segmentation x Family-friendly practices” interaction. However, the results reveal a significant three-way interaction, which indicates that the anticipated Desire for segmentation x Family-friendly practices is significant for some values of the reputation variable. As expected, corporate reputation does have a significant main effect on attractiveness. The implications of this study are discussed in conclusion.
Keywords:
- family-friendly practices,
- work-family balance,
- desire for segmentation,
- organizational attraction,
- recruitment
Résumé
Dans un contexte de rareté de main-d’oeuvre, les organisations sont soumises à des pressions grandissantes pour attirer des employés de talents. Se préoccupant de leur capacité d’attraction, notamment auprès des femmes et des jeunes professionnels, de plus en plus d’entreprises proposent à leurs employés une gamme de pratiques visant à favoriser la conciliation travail-famille, tels des horaires flexibles ou des garderies en milieu de travail.
Bien que l’effet de ces pratiques n’ait pas été beaucoup testé empiriquement, une recension des écrits nous a permis de postuler que les organisations qui offrent de telles pratiques seront effectivement plus attrayantes aux yeux des candidats (H1), mais que cet effet sera modéré par le désir de segmentation (H2). Ce concept réfère à la séparation entre les rôles professionnels et personnels. Ainsi, les individus ayant un désir de segmentation élevé seront plus attirés par des compagnies qui offrent des stratégies de conciliation travail-famille basées sur la séparation des rôles, comme les horaires flexibles, plutôt que des stratégies basées sur l’intégration des rôles, comme le télétravail. La réputation de l’organisation a également un effet sur son pouvoir d’attraction (H3).
Utilisant une méthode de recherche par scénario, nous avons testé l’effet individuel de quatre pratiques de conciliation sur l’attraction de candidats : service de garde sur les lieux du travail, généreux congés personnels, horaires flexibles et télétravail. Nos résultats confirment que les pratiques de conciliation ont un effet sur l’attraction. Plus spécifiquement, les scénarios ayant obtenu les scores d’attraction les plus élevés sont ceux qui proposaient des congés personnels généreux et la flexibilité des horaires. Contrairement à nos attentes, l’interaction « besoin de segmentation x pratiques de conciliation » ne s’est pas révélée significative. Tel qu’attendu, la réputation de l’entreprise a un effet principal significatif sur l’attraction. Les implications de ces résultats pour la recherche et la pratique sont présentées en conclusion.
Mots-clés:
- conciliation travail-famille,
- équilibre travail-famille,
- désir de segmentation,
- attraction organisationnelle,
- recrutement
Resumen
En un contexto de escasez de mano de obra, las organizaciones son sometidas a presiones cada vez más grandes para atraer empleados de talento. Las organizaciones se preocupan de su capacidad de atracción, sobre todo respecto a las mujeres y los jóvenes profesionales, y cada vez mas las empresas proponen a sus empleados una gama de prácticas con miras a favorecer la conciliación trabajo-familia, como los horarios flexibles o las guarderías en el lugar de trabajo.
Aunque el efecto de estas prácticas ha sido poco evaluada empíricamente, una recensión de escritos nos ha permitido de postular que las organizaciones que ofrecen tales prácticas serán efectivamente más atractivas a la vista de los candidatos (H1), pero que este efecto será moderado por el deseo de segmentación (H2). Este concepto hace referencia a la separación entre los roles profesionales y personales. Así, los individuos que tienen un deseo de segmentación elevado serán más atraídos por las compañías que ofrecen estrategias de conciliación trabajo-familia basadas en la separación de roles, como los horarios flexibles, en vez de las estrategias basadas sobre la integración de roles, como el teletrabajo. La reputación de la organización tiene también un efecto sobre su poder de atracción (H3). Utilizando un método de investigación por escenario, hemos evaluado el efecto individual de cuatro prácticas de conciliación (servicio de guardería en el lugar de trabajo, permisos personales generosos, horarios flexibles, teletrabajo) sobre la atracción de candidatos. Nuestros resultados confirman que las prácticas de conciliación tienen un efecto sobre la atracción. Más específicamente, los escenarios que han obtenido los puntajes de atracción más elevados son aquellos que proponen permisos personales generosos y flexibilidad de horarios. Contrariamente a nuestras previsiones, la interacción entre la necesidad de segmentación y las prácticas de conciliación no se reveló significativa. Tal como previsto, la reputación de la empresa tiene un efecto principal significativo sobre la atracción. Las implicaciones de estos resultados para la investigación y la práctica son presentadas en conclusión.
Palabras clave:
- conciliación trabajo-familia,
- equilibrio trabajo-familia,
- deseo de segmentación,
- atracción organizacional,
- reclutamiento
Appendices
References
- Aselage, Justin and Robert Eisenberger. 2003. “Perceived Organizational Support and Psychological Contracts: A Theoretical Integration.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (5), 491-509.
- Ashforth, Blake E., Glen E. Kreiner and Mel Fugate. 2000. “All In a Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions.” Academy of Management Review, 25 (3), 472-491.
- Boyar, Scott L., Carl P. Maertz Jr. and Allison W. Pearson. 2005. “The Effects of Work-Family Conflict and Family-Work Conflict on Nonattendance Behaviors.” Journal of Business Research, 58 (7), 919-925.
- Breaugh, James A. and N. Kathleen Frye. 2007. “An Examination of the Antecedents and Consequences of the Use of Family-Friendly Benefits.” Journal of Managerial Issues, 19 (1), 35-52.
- Bretz, Robert D., Jr. and Timothy A. Judge. 1994. “The Role of Human Resource Systems in Job Applicant Decision Processes.” Journal of Management, 20 (3), 531-551.
- Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2005. Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, Updated and Available on the Internet (Publication No. USDL 05-849). Washington, D.C. <http://www.bls.gov/bls/databooknews2005.pdf> (accessed July 16, 2008).
- Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. Employment Characteristics of Families in 2006 (Publication No. USDL 07-0673). Washington, D.C. <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf> (accessed July 16, 2008).
- Cable, Daniel M. and Timothy A. Judge. 1994. “Pay Preferences and Job Search Decisions: A Person-Organization Fit Perspective.” Personnel Psychology, 47 (2), 317-348.
- Casper, Wendy J. and Louis C. Buffardi. 2004. “Work-Life Benefits and Job Pursuit Intentions: The Role of Anticipated Organizational Support.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65 (3), 391-410.
- Chapman, Derek S., Krista L. Uggerslev, Sarah A. Carroll, Kelly A. Piasentin and David A. Jones. 2005. “Applicant Attraction to Organizations and Job Choice: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Correlates of Recruiting Outcomes.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5), 928-944.
- Clark, Sue Campbell. 2000. “Work/Family Border Theory: A New Theory of Work/Family Balance.” Human Relations, 53 (6), 747-770.
- Collins, Christopher J. and Jian Han. 2004. “Exploring Applicant Pool Quantity and Quality: The Effects of Early Recruitment Practice Strategies, Corporate Advertising, and Firm Reputation.” Personnel Psychology, 57 (3), 685-717.
- Deshpande, Satish P. and Peter P. Schoderbek. 1993. “Pay-Allocations by Managers: A Policy-Capturing Approach.” Human Relations, 46 (4), 465-479.
- Duxbury, Linda and Chris Higgins. 2003. Work-life Conflict in Canada in the New Millennium. A Status Report. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Public Health Agency of Canada. <http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/pdf/rprt_2_e.pdf> (accessed July 16, 2008).
- European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. 2007. European Quality of Life Survey 2007. First findings. <http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eqls/2007/index.htm> (accessed January 30, 2009).
- Fombrun, Charles J., Naomi A. Gardberg and Joy M. Sever. 2000. “The Reputation Quotient: A Multi-Stakeholder Measure of Corporate Reputation.” The Journal of Brand Management, 7 (4), 241-255.
- Friedman, Dana E. 1990. “Work and Family: The New Strategic Plan.” Human Resource Planning, 13 (2), 79-89.
- Frone, Michael R., Marcia Russell and M. Lynne Cooper. 1997a. “Relation of Work-Family Conflict Outcomes: A Four-Year Longitudinal Study of Employed Parents.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70 (4), 325-335.
- Frone, Michael R., John K. Yardley and Karen S. Markel. 1997b. “Developing and Testing an Integrative Model of the Work-Family Interface.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50 (2), 145-167.
- Golden, Timothy D. and John F. Veiga. 2005. “The Impact of Extent of Telecommuting on Job Satisfaction: Resolving Inconsistent Findings.” Journal of Management, 31 (2), 301-318.
- Graham, Mary E. and Daniel M. Cable. 2001. Consideration of the Incomplete Block Design for Policy-Capturing Research. Organizational Research Methods, 4 (1), 26-44.
- Greenhaus, Jeffrey H. and Nicholas J. Beutell. 1985. “Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles.” Academy of Management Review, 10 (1), 76-88.
- Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., Karen M. Collins and Jason D. Shaw. 2003. “The Relation between Work-Family Balance and Quality of Life.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 (3), 510-531.
- Greening, Daniel W. and Daniel B. Turban. 2000. “Corporate Social Performance as a Competitive Advantage in Attracting a Quality Workforce.” Business and Society, 39 (3), 254-280.
- Groenland, Edward A.G. 2002. “Qualitative Research to Validate the RQ-Dimensions.” Corporate Reputation Review, 4 (4), 308-315.
- Grover, Steven L. 1991. “Predicting the Perceived Fairness of Parental Leave Policies.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (2), 247-255.
- Grover, Steven L. and Karen J. Crooker. 1995. “Who Appreciates Family-Responsive Human Resource Policies: The Impact of Family-Friendly Policies on the Organizational Attachment of Parents and Nonparents.” Personnel Psychology, 48, 271-288.
- Guérin, Gilles, Sylvie St-Onge, Victor Haines, René Trottier and Manon Simard. 1997. “Les pratiques d’aide à l’équilibre emploi-famille dans les organisations du Québec.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 52 (2), 274-301.
- Hartmann, E. 1997. “The Concept of Boundaries in Counselling and Psychotherapy.” British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 25, 147-162.
- Hill, E. Jeffrey, Vjollca K. Märtinson, Maria Ferris and Robin Z. Baker. 2004. “Beyond the Mommy Track: The Influence of New-Concept Part-Time Work for Professional Women on Work and Family.” Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25 (1), 121-136.
- Honeycutt, Tracey L. and Benson Rosen. 1997. “Family Friendly Human Resource Policies, Salary Levels, and Salient Identity as Predictors of Organizational Attraction.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50 (2), 271-290.
- Istace, Évelyne, Michel Laffut, Robert Plasman and Christine Ryuters, eds. 2004. Sphères privée et professionnelle: vers une recomposition des rôles et des actions. Bruxelles: de Boeck.
- Judge, Timothy A. and Robert D. Bretz. 1992. “Effects of Work Values on Job Choice Decisions.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (2), 261-271.
- Lambert, Susan J. 2000. “Added Benefits: The Link between Work-Life Benefits and Organizational Citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 43 (5), 801-815.
- Lievens, Filip, Karen van Dam and Neil Anderson. 2002. “Recent Trends and Challenges in Personnel Selection.” Personnel Review, 31 (5/6), 580-601.
- Lockwood, Nancy R. 2003. “Work/Life Balance: Challenges and Solutions.” HRMagazine, 48 (6), S1-S11.
- Madsen, Susan R. 2006. “Work and Family Conflict: Can Home-Based Teleworking Make a Difference?” International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9 (3), 307-350.
- Martocchio, Joseph J. and Timothy A. Judge. 1994. “A Policy-Capturing Approach to Individuals’ Decisions to be Absent.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57 (3), 358-386.
- Neville, Benjamin A., Simon J. Bell and Bülent Mengüç. 2005. “Corporate Reputation, Stakeholders and the Social Performance-Financial Performance Relationship.” European Journal of Marketing, 39 (9/10), 1184-1201.
- Nippert-Eng, Christena E. 1996. Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Parasuraman, Saroj and Jeffrey H. Greenhaus. 1997. Integrating Work and Family: Challenges and Choices for a Changing World. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
- Parasuraman, Saroj, Yasmin S. Purohit, Veronica M. Godshalk and Nicholas J. Beutell. 1996. “Work and Family Variables, Entrepreneurial Career Success, and Psychological Well-Being.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48 (3), 275-300.
- Peterson, Robert A. 2001. “On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 450-461.
- Rau, Barbara L. and Maryanne M. Hyland. 2002. “Role Conflict and Flexible Work Arrangements: The Effects on Applicant Attraction.” Personnel Psychology, 55 (1), 111-136.
- Rothausen, Teresa J., Jorge A. Gonzalez, Nicole E. Clarke and Lisa L. O’Dell. 1998. “Family-Friendly Backlash-Fact or Fiction? The Case of Organizations’ On-Site Child Care Centers.” Personnel Psychology, 51 (3), 685-706.
- Rothbard, Nancy P., Katherine W. Phillips and Tracy L. Dumas. 2005. “Managing Multiple Roles: Work-Family Policies and Individuals’ Desires for Segmentation.” Organization Science, 16 (3), 243-260.
- Rynes, Sara L., Donald P. Schwab and Herbert G. Heneman III. 1983. “The Role of Pay and Market Pay Variability in Job Application Decisions.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31 (3), 353-364.
- Scandura, Terri A. and Melenie J. Lankau. 1997. “Relationships of Gender, Family Responsibility and Flexible Work Hours to Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18 (4), 377-391.
- Schweitzer, Linda and Linda Duxbury. 2006. “Benchmarking the Use of Telework Arrangements in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 23 (2), 105-117.
- Secret, Mary. 2005. “Parenting in the Workplace: Child Care Options for Consideration.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41 (3), 326-347.
- Silvera, Rachel. 2002. Articuler vie familiale et vie professionnelle en Europe: un enjeu pour l’égalité. Paris: La Documentation française.
- Straub, Caroline. 2007. “A Comparative Analysis of the Use of Work-Life Balance Practices in Europe.” Women in Management Review, 22 (4), 289-304.
- Thomas, Linda T. and Daniel C. Ganster. 1995. “Impact of Family-Supportive Work Variables on Work-Family Conflict and Strain: A Control Perspective.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 80 (1), 6-15.
- Turban, Daniel B. 2001. “Organizational Attractiveness as an Employer on College Campuses: An Examination of the Applicant Population.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58 (2), 293-312.
- Turban, Daniel B. and Daniel M. Cable. 2003. “Firm Reputation and Applicant Pool Characteristics.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 (6), 733-751.
- Williamson, Crystal L., John G. Cope, Lori F. Thompson and Karl L. Wuensch. 2002. “Policy Capturing as a Tool to Enhance Recruiting.” Career Development International, 7 (3), 159-166.
- Zabarauskaite, Rasa. 2008. Employers Agree on Need to Balance Family and Work Interests. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. <http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/2008/09/LT0809019I.htm> (accessed February 5, 2009).