Variations in adoption of workplace work–family arrangements in Europe: the influence of welfare-state regime and organizational characteristics

Abstract

Using a unique data set of more than 2800 organizations in 19 countries, this article investigated the variations in adoption of workplace work -family arrangements and whether this variation can be explained either by differences in welfare-state contexts or by organization-related factors. Although the welfare-state context contributed significantly to the explanation of workplace work-family arrangements, the adoption of workplace arrangements was more strongly related to organizational conditions and characteristics. However, the results also show that when the development of workfamily arrangements is mainly left to the market, as in the liberal context, employers do not fully make up for the absence of public provisions. The findings support the institutional argument that public provisions help to create a normative climate that gives rise to new social expectations and 'a sense of entitlement' regarding work-family support. The study supports the rational choice perspective where both employers' institutional environments and organizational factors are viewed as resources and constraints influencing employers' decision to adopt work -family arrangements.

A business case or social responsibility? How top managers’ support for work-life arrangements relates to the national context

“…These groups put pressure on organizations to adopt arrangements (normative pressure) beyond the statutory requirements (Oliver, 1991). These argumentations have been used to explaining the observed positive relation between the level of state work-life policies and the provision of work-life arrangements by organizations Den Dulk et al, 2012), and the observed positive relation between the level of national gender equality and the provision of work-life arrangements by organizations (Lyness & Kropf, 2005).…”

“…With regard to the relationship between state work-life policies (e.g. statutory leave) and organizations' provision of work-life arrangements, some find a positive relationship Den Dulk et al, 2012), while others find a negative relation (Den Dulk, 2001;Ollier-Malaterre, 2009). This leaves the question of how organizations' provision of work-life arrangements is shaped by the national context open for further exploration.…”

“…Other examples are extending leave periods beyond the statutory requirement and providing on-site child care (Ollier-Malaterre, McNamara, Matz-Costa, Pitt-Catsouphes, & Valcour, 2013). Providing flexibility in time and space is found to be most common in countries characterized by a social democratic welfare regime, while extending leave periods is found more often in countries with a conservative or liberal welfare regime (Den Dulk et al, 2012).…”

“…The extent to which organizations provide work-life arrangements to employees beyond what is statutorily required varies not only between organizations but also structurally between countries (Den Dulk, Peters, & Poutsma, 2012;Den Dulk, Peters, Poutsma, & Ligthart, 2010;Lambert & Kossek, 2005), both in terms of the level of provision of such arrangements and in the types of arrangements. An important type of work-life arrangements constitutes those that allow for flexibility in time and space, such as flextime, telecommuting, and reduced working hours.…”

“…Explanations given thus far for national variation in organizations' provision of work-life arrangements focus on who is seen in the particular cultural context of a country as responsible and eligible for providing support for care responsibilities: the family, the state or employers (Kamerman & Kahn, 1997;Ollier-Malaterre, 2009), differences in the legislative context (Den Dulk et al, 2012;Den Dulk, Groeneveld, Ollier-Malaterre, & Valcour, 2013;Lewis, 2003;Lewis & Haas, 2005) and variation in the level of gender equality in society Lyness & Kropf, 2005). Cross-national studies have, however, yielded mixed or even contradictory results .…”