Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea

European Management Journal (2013) 31, 505– 521

Adam Smith Business School journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/emj

Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea Ji Sung Kim

a,*

, Sue R. Faerman

b

a

Department of Public Administration and Policy, University at Albany—SUNY, Milne Hall, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA b Department of Public Administration and Policy, University at Albany—SUNY, Lecture Center 30, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA

KEYWORDS Family-friendly programs; Work-life balance; Societal culture; Organizational culture

Summary As the percentage of females in the workforce and dual-income families has increased, there has been a parallel increase in scholarsÕ attempts to shed light on the effects of implementing family-friendly programs such as flexible time arrangements and child care programs in organizations. This empirical study examines the relationship between organizational and societal level culture in both public and private sectors organizations in the Republic of Korea and the utilization of family-friendly programs. Analyzing data from 30 in-depth interviews with public and private sector employees, our findings indicate that, despite national efforts to promote FFPs, these programs are not widely used in either sector. We proposed that a key reason for the lack of utilization is the lack of congruity between societal and organizational cultural values and the managerial values that undergird these programs. ª 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Over the past two decades, the number of dual-income families has increased as more women have entered into the workplace1. At the same time, employeesÕ interest in their quality of life has also steadily increased. Accordingly, * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 518 368 0623. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.S. Kim). 1 According to statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the employment rate for women in the OECD member countries increased steadily from 49.4% in 1981 to 56.7% as of 2010.

family-friendly programs (FFPs) such as flexible time policies and child care programs in organizations have received much attention as a means to respond to these shifts in the labor market structure and employeesÕ value orientations (OÕShea & Kirrane, 2008; Wang, Lawler, Shi, Walumbwa, & Piao, 2008). FFPs include a broad range of employer-sponsored human resource management (HRM) practices designed to enhance employeesÕ work-family balance (Ngo, Foley, & Loi, 2009; Veiga, Baldridge, & Eddleston, 2004), and are referred to by a wide variety of names, including work-life balance policies, work-family policies, and family-supportive practices.

0263-2373/$ - see front matter ª 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.04.012

506 FFPs are seen as a means of reducing employeesÕ work-family conflicts (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Behson, 2005; Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999), which is ‘‘a form of interrole conflict in which demands between family and work are incompatible’’ (Spector et al., 2004, p. 121). Spector et al. (2004) note that work-family conflicts include both conflicts that emerge when family obligations impinge on work responsibilities and those that occur when work responsibilities impinge on family obligations. Findings from studies of FFPs show that the provision of FFPs is positively related to organizational performance (e.g., Durst, 1999; Eaton, 2003; Lee & Kim, 2009; Ngo et al., 2009; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000), as well as to employeesÕ work attitudes (e.g., Anderson et al., 2002; Eaton, 2003; Lee, Bang, & Oah, 2005; Saltzstein, Ting, & Saltzstein, 2001; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007; Wang et al., 2008), and work performance (e.g., Gray, 2002; Lee, Lee, & Han, 2008; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). In addition, some research has shown that FFPs do not only have positive effects on attitudes of employees who directly benefit from the programs, but also on other organizational members who see the adoption of FFPs as an indicator of positive organizational support (Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). Nevertheless, considerable research indicates that FFPs are generally not fully utilized by employees (Veiga et al., 2004). The general underutilization of FFPs has led some scholars to question whether organizational and/or societal culture may influence employeesÕ utilization of these programs. While some research has addressed these antecedents, the majority of research on FFPs has been conducted in Western settings, and it is reasonable to question whether the correlates and consequences of FFPs would differ across cultures. While there has been much useful work on FFPs outside the United States, much of this research has been conducted in European settings (e.g., Haas, Allard, & Hwang, 2002; Lyness & Knopf, 2005; Peus & Traut-Mattausch, 2008; Wood, de Menezes, & Lasaosa, 2003), and only a few studies have included non-Western settings such as Latin America and Asia (Ngo et al., 2009; Spector et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2008). It is thus important to examine the impact of national culture on the adoption and utilization of FFPs. In the Republic of Korea (Korea, hereafter), a report published in 2006 by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family2 (MOGEF) described the implementation of FFPs in Korea as being at the incipient stage (MOGEF, 2006). To encourage greater use of these programs, the Ministry developed the

2 Based on the National Government Organization Act, revised in February 2008, the family affairs for which the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (inaugurated as the Ministry of Gender Equality) had been responsible were transferred to the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs (former Ministry of Health and Welfare). In March 2010, the Government Organization Act was revised again. As a result, the two ministries returned to their previous form, and work related to family was transferred back to the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family from the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

J.S. Kim, S.R. Faerman Family Friendly Index (FFI), and implemented a program to certify family-friendly workplaces3 based on the index in 2006. The FFI scores organizations based on 124 questions regarding their level of adoption of various programs and managerial practices, and provides bonus points if an organization provides programs beyond the legal requirement, e.g., providing more parental leave than required by law. Total scores are then normalized so that an organization can receive a maximum of 100 points. In the 2006 report, 705 Korean organizations including government agencies, private sector organizations, and universities, on average, scored 37 out of 100 points. Government organizations including local and central government agencies scored 44 points on average; whereas private sector organizations scored 31 points, on average. Since 2008, the Ministry has provided benefits to organizations that receive a high rank on this index. Thus, despite efforts by the Korean national government to encourage family-friendly workplaces, FFPs continue to be underutilized within both the public and private sector. In light of this discrepancy, the goal of this study is to gain a better understanding of why FFPs are not better utilized in Korean organizations, and whether there are specific cultural elements at the organizational and societal level influencing the utilization of these programs.

Literature review Current studies of FFP adoption and utilization have focused primarily on a few key organizational characteristics that may influence whether or not an organization adopts FFPs, or individual-level (personal) characteristics that may influence the likelihood that employees will use these programs, but have paid relatively little attention to cultural characteristics (Lyness & Knopf, 2005). Because our research focuses on why FFPs have not been well accepted in Korean organizations, despite governmentÕs efforts to encourage organizational adoption of FFPs, we focus this literature review on the potential impact of societal and organizational culture on FFP utilization. We begin with an overview of FFPs and potential antecedents of FFP adoption.

Family-friendly programs (FFPs) As noted above, FFPs include a broad range of employersponsored HRM practices designed to enhance employeesÕ work-family balance. There is, however, no consensus over what constitutes a single FFP or package of FFPs, or over which programs fit into the FFP categories (Saltzstein et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2008). Veiga et al. (2004) note, for example, that ‘‘there are at least 30 different types of work-family programs used by companies that can be combined in an endless list of potential work-family programs’’ (p. 321). Table 1 shows examples of the types of FFPs examined in recent research. Because we are particularly interested in the utilization of FFPs in Korea, we present these 3

In 2008, the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs identified five categories of programs within their definition of FFPs: flexible time programs; child care programs; family care programs; employee assistance programs; and family-friendly culture programs.

Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea Table 1

Types of FFPs in recent studies.

Types of FFPs Flexible time programs

Authors Flextime

Job sharing Flexplace Policies in general Child care programs

Maternity/Parental leave

Child care assistance

Policies in general Family care programs

Family leave Elder care assistance Policies in general

Financial support

Policies in general

Anderson et al. (2002), Davis and Kalleberg (2006), Durst (1999), Eaton (2003), Glass (2004), Mumford and Budd (2006), Perry-Smith and Blum (2000), Saltzstein et al. (2001), Still and Strang (2003), Thompson et al. (1999), Wang et al. (2008) Durst (1999), Eaton (2003), Mumford and Budd (2006), Thompson et al. (1999) Eaton (2003), Glass (2004), Mumford and Budd (2006), Ngo et al. (2009) Poelmans and Beham (2008), Wise and Bond (2003) Brennan (2007), Davis and Kalleberg (2006), Magoshi and Chang (2009), Mumford and Budd (2006), Ngo et al. (2009), Perry-Smith and Blum (2000), Pylkka ¨nen and Smith (2004) Anderson et al. (2002), Brennan (2007), Durst (1999), Glass (2004), Mumford and Budd (2006), Perry-Smith and Blum (2000), Pylkka ¨nen and Smith (2004), Saltzstein et al. (2001), Still and Strang (2003), Thompson et al. (1999), Wang and Walumbwa (2007) Poelmans and Beham (2008), Yoo and Choi (2009) Magoshi and Chang (2009), Thompson et al. (1999), Wang and Walumbwa (2007), Wise and Bond (2003) Perry-Smith and Blum (2000) Blair-Loy and Wharton (2002), Davis and Kalleberg (2006), Poelmans and Beham (2008), Wang et al. (2008) Magoshi and Chang (2009), Yoo and Choi (2009)

examples using three of the five subcategories4 used by the MOGEFÕs FFI and one additional category that is not specified by the index. Flexible time programs include initiatives that offer employees flexibility in terms of time and space, thus allowing employees to avoid conflicts between work and family. Child care programs refer to leave policies and other practices offered for childbirth and childrearing. Family care programs help employees to take care of their family members when they are sick or in trouble. Financial support programs provide monetary assistance to help employees to balance their work and personal lives; these programs are relatively rare. Most studies examining antecedents of organizational adoption of FFPs have examined organizational demographic characteristics of employees and found the percent of female employees and organizational size to be the most significant antecedents associated with the adoption of FFPs (Davis & Kalleberg, 2006; Lee et al., 2008). Alternatively, some studies have focused on the motivations or rationales for adopting such programs. In general, three primary motivations or rationales – ethical, good business and legalistic – have emerged as reasons for adopting FFPs (Veiga et al., 2004). Organizations that adopt FFPs for ethical reasons see these programs as ‘‘the right thing to do.’’ Arguably, many 4

507

The other two categories of programs are employee assistance programs and family-friendly culture programs. While there is a vast literature that examines a wide variety of employee assistance programs, this literature is generally not directly focused on familyfriendly programs, and so is not included here. Alternatively, the literature on family-friendly cultures, tends to focus more generally on cultural elements (characteristics) of the organization, but does not focus on specific programs. Hence, this category is also excluded from this table.

government mandates emerge from this perspective, believing that in order for women to become full participants in the workplace, organizations must adopt FFPs. Alternatively, organizations that adopt FFPs because they see the programs as good business practice believe they are enhancing their competitive advantage, by increasing their ability to recruit and retain high-quality employees who seek employment in organizations with a familyfriendly work environment (Kim, 2008; OÕShea & Kirrane, 2008); Finally, some organizations adopt FFPs as a result of government mandates. Indeed, most countries have laws and regulations mandating organizations to establish familyfriendly programs or policies5. Although, as noted above, findings from most current studies of FFPs show that, overall, the provision of FFPs is positively related to employeesÕ work attitudes and organizational performance, relationships between particular programs and job-related variables are not consistent. One explanation for the inconsistencies in findings regarding the impact of FFPs is that differing evaluations of the impact of FFPs might result from differing categorizations and measures of FFPs across studies. Alternatively, culture at either the societal or organizational level, which has not been a major focus of attention in FFP studies, might be an important antecedent of the adoption of FFPs. More importantly, for our purposes, culture might be a missing link in the relationship between the adoption of FFPs and job-related outcomes. In the next section, we examine 5 The OECD maintains a database of specific government mandates related to a broad range of family-friendly policies (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Family Database, 2012).

508 societal culture as a potential antecedent to organizational adoption of FFPs, and also look at both societal and organizational culture as potential mediating variables between organizational adoption and individual use of these programs.

Culture Conceptualization Although many scholars have argued that culture is a very complex and elusive concept, and scholars from different disciplines are not consistent in the ways that they define, conceptualize, and measure culture (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Earley & Gibson, 1998; McSweeney, 2002; Smircich, 1983), definitions of culture consistently note that culture is shared by members of a society and is an important basis for distinguishing people of one society from those of another. Among the most important elements of culture (Schein, 1992), values – defined as ‘‘broad preferences for one state of affairs over others’’ (Hofstede, 1985, p. 347) – have been identified as a crucial source of variation among national groups, and have been given considerable attention by many cross-cultural researchers (Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). A number of models of culture – such as those developed by Hofstede (1984) and Rokeach (1973) – are based on values and depend on the underlying principle that individualsÕ actions and behaviors represent cultural manifestations of values held by members of the society. It should be noted, however, that individualsÕ value systems are shaped by personal, as well as social and cultural, experiences, thus leading to intracultural diversity and distinctiveness as well as intercultural similarities (Erez & Earley, 1993; Rokeach, 1973). Arguably, dimensions from HofstedeÕs model (1984, 2001) of national culture provide the most widely accepted approach to describing national cultures in studies of management and organizational behavior. In his original work, Hofstede identified four values dimension of culture – power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. Power distance reflects the extent to which members of a society accept unequal distribution of power within a culture. Uncertainty avoidance reflects societal membersÕ preference for structured situations in order not to face uncertainties in life. Individualism reflects the extent to which individuals pursue their own goals over those of their group, whereas collectivism reflects the opposite. Masculinity/femininity refers to the level or differentiation across society with respect to gender roles and the level of emphasis on competition and achievement. Subsequently, Hofstede (1991) added a fifth dimension – Confucian dynamism – which reflects longterm vs. short-term orientation. Generally, Hofstede and other scholars using this model have used these dimensions as a way of linking management practices to culture (e.g., Leat & El-Kot, 2007; Raghuram, London, & Larsen, 2001; Schuler & Rogovsky, 1998). At the organizational level, culture is often viewed from a ‘‘corporate culture’’ perspective, which assumes that a strong culture leads to better organizational performance, effectiveness and commitment (Schein, 1992). This per-

J.S. Kim, S.R. Faerman spective sees culture as an internal organizational trait rather than an external force influencing the organization (Erez & Earley, 1993). The research agenda stemming from this view focuses on how organizational culture can be molded in particular ways to be consistent with managerial intentions (Smircich, 1983), and how it can be used to enhance organizational and individual performance (Lewis, 1997; Pemberton, 1995). Research focusing on the relationship between both societal and organizational culture and organizational effectiveness has generally examined managerial practices as visible manifestations of culture (e.g., Detert, Schroeder, & Mauriel, 2000), arguing that, societal culture, as the macro context of an organization, has a strong influence on organizational norms and values, which in turn influence organizational management practices as well as individualsÕ behaviors (Garibaldi de Hilal, 2006; Lawler & Bae, 1998; Leat & El-Kot, 2007; Stone, Stone-Romero, & Lukaszewski, 2007; Stone-Romero & Stone, 2007; Syed & Ozbilgin, 2009). For example, some scholars have viewed HRM practices such as FFPs as cultural artifacts that manifest fundamental assumptions and values of the societal culture in which organizations are embedded (Laurent, 1986; Lewis, 1997), as well as convey management values and beliefs regarding the organizationÕs culture (e.g., Fried, 1998; Lewis, 1997; Ngo et al., 2009; Sathe, 1985; Schneider, 1988). From this perspective, management policies and practices that do not fit into societal culture will result in reduced organizational effectiveness and failed policies (Aycan, Al-Hamadi, Davis, & Budhwar, 2007; Gerhart & Feng, 2005; Kanungo & Jaeger, 1990). Overview of Korean culture As noted above, there have been relatively few studies of FFPs in non-Western settings. Therefore, it is important to examine what aspects of societal culture distinguish Korea from the United States and European countries, as well as what aspects of societal culture distinguish Korea from other Asian countries that share certain cultural values such as Japan and China. According to HofstedeÕs (2001) five dimensions, Korea is a hierarchical (high power distance), collectivistic, and feminine society with high uncertainty avoidance and a long-term orientation. Societal culture in Korea, similar to societal cultures in China and Japan, is heavily influenced by Confucianism. A central value of Confucianism is filial piety, or respect for oneÕs elders, including ancestors. This has been extended to other hierarchical relationships, leading people in Korea to be loyal to the groups to which they belong as well as to accept existing hierarchical orders and inherent inequalities in the society without further explanation. Consistent with this notion, BaeÕs (1997) findings show that traditional Confucian culture affects Korean management styles, represented as ‘‘authoritarian management style’’ and a ‘‘paternalistic management style’’ (p. 86), ultimately resulting in seniority-based HRM practices. Thus, as Hofstede and Bond (1988) pointed out, Confucianism heavily influences the cultural dimensions of power distance, individualism/collectivism, and masculinity/femininity, corresponding, respectively, with expected social behaviors toward seniors/juniors, toward the group, and toward gender roles.

Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea Although HofstedeÕs model identifies Korean society as feminine, because Korean people value quality of life over competition, others have noted that Confucian values, which have influenced Korean culture over 600 years of its history, have led to such Korean traditions as the clear distinction between menÕs and womenÕs family roles (i.e., men as a bread winner and women as a primary caregiver for family) (Kim, 2005; Kim, 2008). Moreover, the United Nations Development ProgrammeÕs 2011 Human Development Report (UNDP, 2011) indicates that only 50.1 percent of the women participate in the labor force, compared to 72.0 percent of the men. This suggests that HofstedeÕs characterization of Korean society as feminine is not completely accurate. Moreover, recent trends toward globalization have led to increased coexistence of competing values that prevail in Western societies such as individualism with the traditional Confucian values in these societies (Zhang, Lin, Nonaka, & Beom, 2005). A comparison of Korean societal culture to societal cultures in China and Japan, countries that share common cultural heritage of Confucianism, indicates that Korea appears to be much more collectivistic than Japan and much less masculine than Japan and China although, as noted above, other sources suggest that Korea is not as feminine as it is characterized by Hofstede. In terms of power distance and long-term orientation, Korea is very similar to the two countries, although China, where Confucianism originated, appears to have the highest power distance and long-term orientation amongst the three countries. Thus, while several East Asian countries such as China, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea share similar cultural roots with respect to Confucianism, the degree to which people in these countries endorse Confucian values and the types of values that prevail in each country carry subtle differences based on their different histories. As a result of these differences as well as globalization, it is clear that traditional values and newly adopted values compete and even conflict; and the national cultures of these countries, which share a number of similar cultural values, still must be examined from the unique lens of each countryÕs specific history and culture.

Cultural factors influencing the adoption and use of FFPs The cultural concepts discussed above provide a foundation for investigating how cultural elements at both the societal and organizational level are associated with the adoption and utilization of FFPs. Here we need to recognize, however, that cultural systems within a society are complex and so one should expect that there will be competing values that influence elements of a societyÕs culture (Garibaldi de Hilal 2006; Pfau-Effinger, 2005), as well as both the congruence of societal values with government policies and the congruence of government policies with organizational cultures, which are, of course, influenced by societal cultures. Pfau-Effinger (2005), for example, noted that the effectiveness of nationÕs welfare policies, including those associated with developing family-friendly work environments, may be influenced both by societyÕs notions of gender and family and by its notions of social security, which are not necessarily congruent in all policy areas, and so may result in similar

509

policies having different outcomes in different settings (countries). Focusing on the relationship between national (societal) culture and the adoption of FFPs, several scholars propose or hypothesize that collectivistic cultures would promote openness to FFPs (Ngo et al., 2009; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007) and that people in collectivistic countries are more likely to expect their companies to respond to their workfamily needs (e.g., Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999; Ngo et al., 2009; Spector et al., 2004). For example, Raghuram et al. (2001) focused on differences across European countries with respect to flexible time systems, and found a relationship between cultural differences and organizationsÕ adoption of flexible time practices, and that use of shift work in an organization is more prevalent in countries with national cultures with low uncertainty avoidance, high power distance and high collectivism. Other researchers have examined the relationships between societal values related to masculinity and gender inequality and the adoption of FFPs – although they have not consistently referenced HofstedeÕs cultural dimension of masculinity/femininity – and found that values related to gender inequality have a strong impact on organizational adoption of FFPs as well as individualsÕ attitudes and intentions regarding the use of FFPs. For example, Schuler and Rogovsky (1998) found that countries with high masculinity scores tended to have fewer workplace child care programs, career-break schemes and maternity leave programs. Focusing more on FFP utilization, several researchers have found that legal requirements do not guarantee that organizational cultures will support the use of FFPs. For example, Peus and Traut-Mattausch (2008) interviewed 25 female managers in the United States and 23 female managers in Germany, and found that societal culture has a stronger influence on these managersÕ ability to balance work and family obligations than do the laws related to parental leaves. They concluded that despite the fact that ‘‘German family protection laws are far more extensive that American ones,’’ (p. 560), their ‘‘data provide evidence for the fact that a womanÕs opportunity to combine a career with having children . . . is influenced more strongly by dominant societal values than by the laws that exist in it’’ (p. 568, emphasis added). Similarly, Lyness and Kropf (2005) found that work cultures were heavily influenced by societal values related to gender inequality and that ‘‘the availability of formal work-family benefits and programs does not ensure that the informal organizational work-family culture will be supportive of employees who want to utilize these benefits without career penalties or sanctions’’ (p. 55). Using the United Nations Development ProgrammeÕs Gender-related Development Index6 as a measure of gender inequality at the national level, they examined the experiences of those working in the headquarters of multinational corporations and those working outside the headquartersÕ countries, and concluded that while the availability of formal benefits and programs was related to the inequality index of the headquarters country, the support for use of these programs was more related to the index (values) of the host country. 6

The Gender Inequality Index has replaced two prior indices, the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Index (UNDP, 2011).

510 Focusing on the organizational level, several studies have examined organizational culture as an important factor affecting the utilization of FFPs in an organization. For example, Saltzstein et al. (2001) pointed out that an unsupportive organizational culture might prevent employees from utilizing FFPs because employees believe that they will be penalized for using these programs. Similarly, Veiga et al. (2004) propose that employeesÕ assessment of the benefits of using FFPs will be related to the organizational culture and the degree to which it supports family-friendly practices. A number of scholars, both directly and indirectly, have focused on what they refer to as family-supportive culture or work-family culture and its effects on employeesÕ utilization of FFPs (e.g., Behson, 2005; Clark, 2001; Kirby & Krone, 2002; Powell, Francesco, & Ling, 2009; Thompson et al., 1999). For example, Thompson et al. (1999) developed a measure of work-family culture based on their definition of work-family cultures as ‘‘the shared assumptions, beliefs, and values regarding the extent to which an organization supports and values the integration of employeesÕ work and family lives’’ (p. 394). The measure includes three dimensions: managerial support, career consequences, and organizational time demands. Managerial support is associated with managementÕs sensitivity to employeesÕ needs with respect to their family responsibilities; career consequences are related to employeesÕ concerns that the utilization of FFPs might harm their career path; and organizational time demands focus on the use of workplace visibility as an indicator of organizational commitment. Their findings indicate that family-friendly cultures are necessary to encourage employeesÕ use of FFPs. Consistent with this model, Haas et al. (2002) found a number of organizational-level variables that influence whether or not men will make use of FFPs. They note that in Sweden, a country where ‘‘fathers have had the legislated right to take paid parental leave longer than fathers in any other nation (since 1974)’’ (p. 321), men only take 12 percent of the days that are available to them. While many argue that this is a financial decision, their findings indicate that both work group support and norms were related to menÕs use of parental leave; fathers in organizations with policies and practices that were seen as father friendly were more likely to make use of parental leave than those in organizations that were not seen in this way. Overall, the research indicates that although many countries around the world have developed national policies supporting FFPs, societal cultures have a stronger influence on the degree to which organizations develop family-friendly cultures, which ultimately influences individualsÕ attitudes towards and intention to use these programs. This suggests the importance of looking more closely at specific elements of Korean culture that may be playing a role in the limited use of FFPs in Korea, despite governmentÕs encouragement of these programs.

Research questions This study examines why FFPs are not widely utilized in Korean organizations, and whether there are specific cultural elements at the organizational and societal level influencing the utilization of these programs. It also examines differ-

J.S. Kim, S.R. Faerman ences between public and private sector in employeesÕ perceptions of the availability of FFPs. Given that prior research has found key differences between organizational cultures and structures of public and private sector organizations (Rainey, 1997; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000), it is important to examine whether these differences affect the adoption and utilization of FFPs. The research questions begin with societal culture as the broader context in which organizations and people as well as programs and policies are embedded, and assume that organizational cultures are influenced by societal cultures. Based on this assumption and the theoretical concepts reviewed above, this research proposes the following research questions: RQ1a. Are there particular elements of societal culture that reduce the likelihood that employees will use FFPs, even when adopted by an organization? RQ1b. Are there particular elements of organizational culture that influence the likelihood that employees will use FFPs? RQ2. Are there sectoral differences that influence how employees in different sectors perceive the adoption of FFPs in their organizations? Are there sectoral differences that influence the likelihood that employees will use such programs? RQ3. How do individual-level (demographic) characteristics influence employeesÕ attitudes towards and use of FFPs?

Methods Data for this study were collected from employees of five organizations, and focused on these individualsÕ knowledge of and experiences with FFPs, as well as their perceptions of how Korean societal culture and their organizational culture influenced the adoption and, ultimately, the utilization, of FFPs in their organizations. This section describes the data collection process.

Participants Interviews were conducted with 30 employees from public and private sector organizations in Korea during the time period from April to August 2009. Because FFPs in Korea are at the incipient stage, we began by selecting the eight most highly-ranked organizations in the public and private sector according to MOGEFÕs FFI, and made an initial contact with the HR manager through e-mail; three organizations (two public organizations and one private organization) responded positively. In addition, using information that the first author had from personal acquaintances, we contacted two (one public and one private sector) organizations where there are no or few FFPs in order to increase variability across the sample. After gaining access to each organization, a snowball sampling approach was used to develop a sample of 30 people (17 male and 13 female). Basic demographic information regarding study participants is presented in Table 2.

Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea Table 2

Characteristics of sample of interviewees. Male

Female

Sector

Public Private

9 8

9 4

Seniority

3 years or less 4–6 years 7–9 years 10 years or more

0 6 7 4

1 4 4 4

Of the five organizations in the sample, four (two public and two private) were located in Seoul, the capital city of Korea, and one public organization was located in the one of metropolitan cities. All five organizations have at least 300 employees. To protect confidentiality, further demographic and descriptive information about the organizations will not be provided. Also to protect confidentiality, we refer to the participant organizations as Pub1, Pub2, Pub3, Pri1, and Pri2. Pub1 is one of the central government organizations whereas Pub2 and Pub3 are municipal government organizations. Among the public sector organizations, Pub1 and Pub2 were highly ranked in terms of FFPs, whereas Pub3 was not. Pri1 is a company that is famous for its familyfriendly management, while Pri2 is a company where FFPs are rarely utilized.

Data collection and analysis procedures The data for this study were collected through in-depth qualitative interviews (see Appendix A7 for interview protocol). The interview was semi-structured to allow participants to share their in-depth knowledge and experiences of the actual situations in their organizations while still allowing some level of consistency across interviews. Thus, while there was a single interview protocol, follow-up questions, probing questions and structuring questions were asked based on participantsÕ responses. Interviewees were asked to describe the cultures of their organizations, departments, and work-unit (Interview question II-1) and cultural elements associated with the adoption of FFPs (II3) as well as how they thought Korean culture influenced the way in which FFPs were perceived by employees (II-5). All interviewees, with the exception of one HR manager, were also asked about their own experience in attempting to take advantage of FFPs (II-7). Interviews were conducted in Korean and took between 70 and 90 min; the first author was the sole translator in order to maintain confidentiality. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and three phases of coding – open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) – were applied to all 30 tran-

7

The original purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between organizational and societal culture and the existence of FFPs, and between FFPs and employeesÕ organizational commitment. During the course of the interviews, it was discovered that FFPs were not well established in any of the organizations, requiring us to focus instead on employeesÕ perceptions of the reasons that these programs were not being used.

511

scripts based on qualitative content analysis. Initially, open coding was used to identify concepts and discover their properties and dimensions. In addition, constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Hewitt-Taylor, 2001) was used to code data into emerging patterns or themes and develop categories associated with the broader conceptual framework and research questions. After reading the interview transcripts, codes were attributed to sentences, paragraphs, or sections that reflected individual themes to which the data were related. While coding was applied to the data, comparison within each interview was conducted. Comparisons across interviews with employees within the same organization were also conducted by expanding codes until relevant themes emerged. Next, comparisons of interviews across different organizations and between different sectors were conducted in order to examine similarities and differences in terms of organizational context and sector. Axial coding was then conducted to link categories to their subcategories. Particular attention was paid to themes that were related to the focus of this research. When core themes were identified, selective coding was used to identify themes related to the research questions in order to explicate ‘‘the story line’’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 116). After repetitively reviewing and coding the transcripts, 22 broad categories that are associated with the research questions were discovered. These categories were found to be linked to one another and were further consolidated into to four decisive themes related to the research focus: seniority-based Korean culture, conflicts between policy intention and organizational culture, different perceptions across sectors regarding policy adoption, and gender and personal values associated with employeesÕ attitudes towards and use of FFPs. The final model of the coding structure is shown in Appendix B.

Results Influence of societal culture on utilization: traditional Confucian values The first research question asks whether there are particular elements of societal culture that reduce the likelihood that employees will take advantage of FFPs. Consistent with HofstedeÕs categorization of Korea as having a collectivist culture, the majority of the interviewees made statements that indicated that they have a collectivistic orientation in that they tend to place organizational goals over their personal goals and highly regard opinions of important others when making decisions regarding FFP utilization. However, most interviewees mentioned that the element of Korean culture that is most deeply connected to their organizational culture and strongly affects their utilization of FFPs is the seniority-based culture that develops from Confucianism – in all situations, elders first. One of the most frequently used words by interviewees was nun-chi, which is interpreted as probing oneÕs face to decide something. Most interviewees discussed needing to try to understand the situation by reading their eldersÕ minds whenever they wanted to take advantage of FFPs. In particular, interviewees in one of the private sector organizations indicated that the seniority-based culture of their

512 industry had a strong impact on employeesÕ utilization of FFPs. ‘‘We have a gi-su8 culture in the company, which expresses the seniority-based Korean atmosphere in an extreme way . . . We have the established order of rank among [employees]. Even though we need to leave work early because of certain family needs, we have to attend group activities after work. If the newest employee turns them down, his/her senior forces him/her to attend the activities by answering something like ÔIf elders go, you must go.Õ’’ (Interviewee #21, Pri1) Apart from the negative consequences for their career, employees perceived that they would damage relationships with their seniors in the organization, which, as noted above, are very important in Korean society, if they utilized the programs against a seniorÕs wish, which consequently, would make their organizational lives uncomfortable. In contrast to scholarsÕ expectations, values based on the collectivistic Korean culture are not as central to the culture as are traditional Confucian values in the workplace. Rather, it was shown that the need to be always respectful to a senior both in society and in organizations leaves employees with additional pressures not to cross a seniorÕs will in taking advantage of FFPs. As indicated earlier, hierarchical relationships valued in the Confucian Korean society lead to an emphasis on seniority and acceptance of the existing hierarchical ordering between juniors and seniors. This is associated with the high level of power distance prevailing in Korean society, as well as with the high masculine and male-dominant Korean societal culture, which creates distinct gender roles that assign women to the family domain. Again, these values are deeply embedded in Korean family structures, organizational processes and structures and society, in general, and create much tension for employees in the organization when they want to take advantage of FFPs. ‘‘I intended to sacrifice for my wife[Õs career] and take paternal leaves for several months to take care of my first child . . . However, my boss and my parents desperately opposed my decision, saying that it is too absurd for a man to take a leave for child care when he has a wife . . . [My wife and I] had a big fight, and we had no choice but to give up [her] career opportunity . . . but my parentsÕ generation still considers womenÕs role within the family as completely natural, and our own decisions cannot but be affected by their norms and values.’’ (Interviewee #19, Pri1) ‘‘My parents-in-law didnÕt allow me to take the threeyear parental leave when my boy was a baby in that they didnÕt want their son to be a sole breadwinner during that period. For me, it was ridiculous that my husband rarely shared housework at home even when we equally contributed to the house income. But, he did not at all seem to think it was unfair. Neither did my parents-in-law, of course.’’ (Interviewee #7, Pub2)

8

Gi-su in Korean means the nth class an employee belongs to when he/she enters the organization.

J.S. Kim, S.R. Faerman Quotes here show how Confucian norms in Korean society regarding appropriate roles in a traditional Korean family increase the burden on employees when they need to use FFPs.

Influence of organizational culture on utilization: conflicting values Research Questions #1b asks whether particular elements of organizational culture influence employeesÕ use of FFPs. The data analysis shows that employees feel that, overall, values and norms necessary for the utilization of FFPs do not fit well with existing organizational values and norms, although they recognized that the intention of these programs is to change the organizational culture and to support their work-life balance and gender equality in the workplace. Nevertheless, cultural elements that are deeply embedded in the organization clearly affected employeesÕ use of FFPs as a concrete work practice. Three major themes drawn from the interviews with respect to this issue are: unsupportive management, shared meanings regarding commitment and time supported by traditional norms, and expected negative career consequences. Interestingly, these themes reflect cultural elements that are exactly opposite from Thompson et al. (1999) three components of a family-friendly culture (see Table 3). Moreover, these elements of workplace culture correspond with aspects of Korean societal culture, which add further pressure to employees. Viewed from the perspective of HofstedeÕs value dimensions, the high power distance of seniority-based Korean culture, which is related to Confucian values, magnifies the effects of unsupportive management on employeesÕ concerns about using FFPs and increases employeesÕ sensitivity to their bossesÕ wills regarding these programs. In the same vein, traditional ways of working were supported by values favoring strongly gendered roles in Korean society, resulting in the assumption that only women should take advantage of FFPs and the stigmatization of men who attempted to take advantage of these programs. Similarly, negative career consequences were much harsher for women employees. Lack of support from management In line with many scholars who have indicated that supportive management is critical to employeesÕ actual utilization of FFPs, interviewees from our study reported that direct supervisors and upper-level managers as well as top management play a critical role in whether or not employees are able to utilize FFPs. Employees who work with supportive supervisors or managers were much more likely to utilize FFPs. However, overall levels of support from supervisors or managers were shown to be very low. ‘‘I do not think [FFPs] can be utilized here. For example, the fixed time system for leaving work is just lip service. Bosses do not actually allow us to utilize those programs . . . Since we have a limited program, it cannot be incorporated into the organization or organizational culture.’’ (Interviewee #13, Pub3) In addition, interviewees believed that most supervisors/ managers in Korean organizations tend to value subordinates who work in traditional and expected ways (e.g.,

Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea Table 3

513

Organizational values/norms and FFPs.

Existing values and norms in the sample organizations

Cultural attributes that are needed for employeesÕ utilization of FFPs- Based on Thompson et al. (1999)

n Unsupportive management n Organizations value employees who follow the traditional norms of working: - Putting work first; Putting family first means not being serious about oneÕs career - Spending more time and being more visible in the workplace are seen as being more committed to the organization n Employees expect negative career consequences when they use FFPs

putting in more time at the workplace). That is, most interviewees perceived that their bosses actually did not want them to use FFPs and set the scene for FFPs not being used. In many cases, employees felt frustrated in that values or beliefs of people at the supervisory or managerial level are not aligned with what is needed for their utilization of FFPs. ‘‘We have a family day, every other Wednesday, twice a month. It guarantees that we can leave the office on time [at six oÕclock]. However, I have a manager who always wants me to report on something at 10:00 p.m. on a family day.’’ (Interviewee #8, Pub2) In some organizations (one public and one private), conflicting managerial systems prevented employees from taking advantage of FFPs. Even where FFPs were available in the organization, other management policies reflect values that conflict with FFPs, making it difficult for employees to use FFPs. In particular, pressures for high performance from the top management were seen as conflicting with the ability to use FFPs. ‘‘The current [official] initiated and declared [a citywide initiative] that emphasizes high performance through creative ideas from city officials. This increases individualsÕ workload and puts the organization under extreme tension; it is not family-friendly.’’ (Interviewee #15, Pub3) In this way, top management may impede workersÕ aspirations to balance their work and family lives and thus may prevent changes in existing cultural norms to match FFP requirements. Furthermore, coworker support was found to be linked to managerial support and was identified as critical for employeesÕ utilization of FFPs. Many interviewees reported feeling strong peer pressure against using FFPs and noted the lack of a supportive infrastructure provided by management regarding the utilization of the FFP in their organizations. ‘‘Job-sharing systems can be used only if there is someone to substitute for my job. However, top management of this company does not provide enough substitute workers. So, if I take leave for family reasons, other teammates have to do extra work. That could be a burden for employees who need to use such a program. More importantly, an employee has his/her own responsibility,

n Management support n Changes in traditional norms and values with respect to the committed employees in the workplace (e.g., norms regarding time, commitment, and productivity) and tolerance for new ways of working n No vindictive disadvantages for utilizing FFPs

which makes it difficult to share jobs in many Korean organizations. That is, taking advantage of a job-sharing system means that ÔI need to do more work in advance or after IÕm done with the family responsibilitiesÕ’’ (Interviewee #20, Pri1) Overall, managers in the sample organizations were not seen as providing support for employeesÕ utilization of FFPs, and this was related to the conflict between values that FFPs need for employeesÕ use and existing organizational values as well as values of managers or supervisors. Norms and values of time, commitment, and ideal workers The interviews suggest that most Korean organizations still value old ways of working, especially in terms of expectations regarding time and commitment. As a result, an ideal worker is still one who puts his/her work first. In addition, organizational members believe that they are rewarded well when they work more hours for the organization because this demonstrates their commitment. Moreover, how an organization defines employeesÕ loyalty/attachment to the organization and how higher management reviews employeesÕ performance are linked directly to what behaviors employees see as expected of them. If employees fail to satisfy those behavioral standards, they may not be rewarded or promoted. Interviewees indicated that people who take advantage of FFPs are considered to be less committed to their work and/or unprofessional. ‘‘Usually we are not guaranteed to be able to leave the office at the regular time. Leaving work before the boss is against both Korean and organizational norms here. If a person leaves the office on time regularly, he or she will be considered not serious about his or her career and be labeled as someone to watch. Everyone has to check the mood and wait until the boss leaves work. Flexible scheduling in this situation? It is just a dream.’’ (Interviewee #27, Pri2) Even in todayÕs organizations, how much time an employee spends in the workplace is a critical standard of his/her commitment. While three organizations in this study offer a variety of FFPs, individuals who want to have a successful career need to show their commitment and loyalty to the organization by coming to work earlier and doing a lot of overtime. Moreover, these expectations become stronger when people are promoted to the managerial level.

514 ‘‘I usually come to work at 6:30 a.m., which is before my kids wake up, and go home after they fall asleep . . . I have been told that when I become a branch manager, I need to plan to work during weekends to meet [the sales target] and to get a good performance review. If I really need to, I might quit my job here.’’ (Interviewee #29, Pri2) ‘‘People who introduced FFPs may have good reasons. However, they are in conflict with what management wants us to do to accomplish organizational goals.’’ (Interviewee #3, Pub1) Moreover, interviewees often felt that putting their family first presents an image of an incompetent employee. These norms were applied more harshly to male employees. ‘‘My close colleague took parental leave to look after his daughter a month ago. After that . . . he had a very difficult time and struggled with a lot of ribbing from his boss and other coworkers.’’ (Interviewee #12, Pub2) Even if male employees really need to take advantage of FFPs, they do not believe they are able to do so since they did not feel they are entitled to do or there was no precedent. They were well aware of what the organization expects of them. Overall, the values associated with expectations of employeesÕ behaviors and those associated with employeesÕ utilization of FFPs seem to be in conflict. That is, existing norms and values are not consistent with management intentions of FFPs, at least as originally stated in organizational policies. Expectations of negative career consequences Fear of negative career consequences are very closely associated with norms and values related to time and commitment, but are more closely tied to concerns about future consequences if one is not seen as being a good employee. Based on the interviews, these consequences were more serious for female employees who largely take part in childbirth and childrearing. Although male participation in domestic work has steadily increased in Korea, they are not expected to put their first priority on their family, whereas women are expected to do so. Consistent with the recent rapid decrease in birthrate, many female interviewees expressed concerns about the consequences of taking maternity leave. In addition, many of the women employees stated that they decided to postpone having a baby because they were not sure whether their position would be safe after they came back from the leave for childbirth or childrearing. Moreover, the fact that the length of absence is much longer than for men made female employees expect that they would be disadvantaged if they made use of FFPs. ‘‘We, as women, often feel overwhelmed thinking of when to get married and have a baby. Although FFPs such as flexible scheduling systems, job-sharing systems, leave policies for childbirth and childrearing exist and are guaranteed by law [in public sector organizations], I expect I will be pushed back on the list of candidates for promotion. I saw many women were assigned to unwanted positions after they came back from leave.’’ (Interviewee #17, Pub3)

J.S. Kim, S.R. Faerman Female employees using FFPs inevitably are less visible at work than male employees. Given traditional organizational norms and values in Korean organizations, female employees who have children are more likely to damage their career prospects in that their situations do not allow them to demonstrate their commitment in expected ways. Although both men and women expected certain negative consequences would result from taking advantage of FFPs, female employees appeared to be more worried about these consequences in that they still are the primary person dealing with child care, and the length of maternity leaves are inevitably longer than for male employees taking paternity leaves.

Sectoral differences in terms of perception of programs Research Question #2 asks about sectoral differences with regard to employeesÕ perceptions of the adoption and utilization of FFPs. While FFPs were not well established in either public or private sector organizations, the interviews showed that employees in the two sectors had somewhat different attributions regarding why FFPs were not better established. Apart from the common themes of organizational culture and societal culture discussed above, a theme that emerged from the analysis was the differences between public and private sector employeesÕ perceptions about their ability to take advantage of these programs. Employees from the public sector strongly perceived that they and their work are regulated by law. Moreover, they were well aware that their task characteristics are strictly defined by job descriptions and that employees are not allowed to perform work outside the strict job description. Thus, even though the government initiated FFPs to establish their political legitimacy according to global standards, public employeesÕ work characteristics frequently impeded their intentions to use FFPs. ‘‘Although the public sector recognizes certain trends in a society and initiates a policy like FFPs, I do not think the government has a broad concern with enhancing employeesÕ commitment or organizational outcomes . . . Moreover, public officials, administrative agencies . . . we are supposed to be inspected for everything we do within the legal boundaries. Job-sharing systems? They cannot be utilized. LetÕs say you take a leave for family reasons. When you come back, work will pile up. Nobody can do the job on your behalf, because most of us do independent tasks by law. If we violate the rules, we will be punished.’’ (Interviewee #4, Pub1) Interestingly, interviewees from public sector organizations perceived that, they would be in a better position than private sector employees in terms of the degree to which they are able to FFPs. In many cases, these interviewees commented on their work environments by making comparisons with their perception of private employeesÕ work conditions. Although employees from neither sector perceived that they have effectively taken advantage of FFPs, public sector employees were certain that they are more likely to be able to use FFPs or that fewer negative consequences would potentially result from their use of FFPs.

Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea Interviewer: ‘‘That is very similar to private sector organizations . . . ’’ Interviewee: ‘‘No, private organizations must be harsher with respect to the expectation of negative career consequences. We wonÕt get fired for the worst case even if we take an unusually long paternity leave.’’ (Interviewee #9, Pub2) Although public sector employees believed there would be difficulties with taking advantage of FFPs, it seemed that they found comfort in perceiving that FFPs are certainly more guaranteed by law and that they are in a better situation than private sector employees. In comparison with public sector employees, employees from the private sector company that was highly ranked in terms of the adoption of FFPs perceived that the company recently began to encourage employees to take advantage of several leave policies to reduce costs. In Korea, large companies have a policy that allows employees to be compensated for unused leaves. Alternatively, companies can decrease employeesÕ cash compensation [called overriding] by encouraging them to use their unused leaves including paternity leaves, and thus improve their profits. Most interviewees from private sector organizations in this study, which are considered major companies in Korea, perceived that their company did not have much desire to put FFPs into practice. Rather, they indicated that they believed that management adopted the programs partially in order to enhance their corporate image and also because they saw it as a way to potentially decrease certain costs.

Individual-level influences on employeesÕ attitudes towards/use of FFPs Research Question #3 asks about individual-level characteristics that influence employeesÕ attitudes towards and use of FFPs. Overall, the interview data showed that individualsÕ demographic attributes did play a role in individual attitudes towards and use of FFPs, particularly those demographic attributes that are also influenced by aspects of societal culture. Thus, while the majority of interviewees pointed out that their intentions to use and their actual use of these programs are more heavily influenced by the organizational and societal culture; gender and employeesÕ value orientations, which are rapidly changing, especially among the younger generation, did emerge as important individual-level characteristics that affected both employeesÕ attitudes towards FFPs and their use of these programs. In particular, employeesÕ gender interacted with societal and organizational norms regarding gender roles, leading to differing concerns between male and female employees regarding their use of FFPs. First, while interviews showed that both male and female employees were reluctant to take advantage of FFPs, male employees often indicated that they are not likely to take advantage of FFPs in that they think these programs are developed for women employees to help them to take care of their family. Moreover, male employees generally indicated that they would expect to be stigmatized and seen as ‘‘not manly’’ if they were to use FFPs. On the other hand, female employees indicated that they would be reluctant to take advantage of FFPs associated with child care because

515

they feel they will lose their ground career-wise in their organization if they were to use those programs. That is, employeesÕ reluctance to use is not just connected with career consequences but also is gender-related. ‘‘We [female employees] cannot bear the burden. If I get married and have children to take care of, on paper and by law, we can use flexible time, job sharing arrangements, maternity leaves as well as parental leaves. However, psychologically, I am afraid that I will lose my ground. Even though my status as a public official will be guaranteed, I might be kicked out of my job and relegated to a trivial job after using those programs. This pressure is much more for women who are major child care providers than for men.’’(Interviewee #5, Pub1) As noted above, the pressure on female employees to not use FFPs appeared to be greater in the private sector organizations in this study in that the female employees in these organizations felt that they could be entirely removed from the organization if they made use of these programs. Nevertheless, female interviewees from both sectors stated that use of FFPs would have severe career consequences, which resulted in many women leaving jobs, rather than taking maternity leave. Men, however, simply did not take the leave guaranteed by law. ‘‘I think people in public sector organizations can have much more stability in terms of their job security and they would not be easily dismissed based on the use of FFPs at least. Still, many female employees in my company quit their jobs when they get married or get pregnant due to tacit organizational norms. Some of them choose to stay but few survive in the end if their commitment to their family seems to impede their work from the management perspective.’’ (Interviewee #28, Pri2) ‘‘I feel that female employees, especially those with low education [i.e., employees with a high school diploma], are treated as if they are expendable. They enter a company with a certain limitation, and feel they need to leave the company when they get married or give birth to a child. [Interviewer: Maternity leave is guaranteed by law.] You are right, but usually they leave in advance.’’ (Interviewee #26, Pri2) Second, rapidly changing value orientations of the younger generation were also shown to be related to employeesÕ intention to use FFPs and their actual use of these programs, although this is mitigated, to some degree, by the current insecurity in the Korean labor market, where the proportion of temporary workers is increasing and high unemployment rate is becoming serious. Nevertheless, some interviewees noted that younger employees were less likely to be concerned about organizational norms regarding working overtime. ‘‘In the past, junior staffs were not likely to leave work until their boss left, and they used to come to work on holidays if they had extra work. These days, young and new employees value their personal life and do not do extra work even if they can get paid overtime. One of my junior staff brings his bike when he comes to work and leaves work every day at the regular time so that he can ride his bicycle. I understand he values his private

516 life, but I donÕt think that kind of person is committed to the organization.’’ (Interviewee #18, Pub3) Overall, the data show that individual-level demographic attributes did influence employeesÕ attitudes towards FFPs and their use of these programs. In particular, the data show that gender and age influence employeesÕ attitudes towards and use of FFPs, in that male and female employees see these programs in very different ways, and younger employeesÕ personal value orientations, which are more oriented toward their personal lives, were shown to be positively associated with employeesÕ intention to use and actual use of FFPs.

Discussion Although the Korean government has encouraged the adoption of FFPs, this study shows that Korean organizations have not put FFPs into full practice and that cultural elements reflecting both organizational and societal values as well as gender and personal value orientations have influenced employeesÕ actual use of FFPs. Interviewees consistently identified the larger societal culture as a key factor influencing the utilization of FFPs, with KoreaÕs senioritybased culture and strong gendered norms influencing employeesÕ beliefs about their ability to use FFPs. Moreover, pressure to conform to these expectations had the greatest impact on women employees in private sector organizations. In addition, differences in organizational norms and structural characteristics between public and private sector organizations influenced employeesÕ perceptions regarding the adoption of FFPs in these organizations. Overall, as a result of weak support from management and traditional Confucian-based norms and values, FFPs in Korean organizations do not reflect the values intended by the original policy and employeesÕ use of these programs is limited.

Implications for theory As noted in the literature review, there has been little attention to societal culture as a key factor in the adoption and utilization of FFPs. Moreover, there have only been a few studies that have looked at FFPs in the Korean setting. Our findings, consistent with findings of previous studies (Peus & Traut-Mattausch, 2008; Schuler & Rogovsky, 1998), indicate that societal culture has a strong influence on both formal/informal organizational practices and individual behaviors. Although efforts have been made around the world to develop legal requirements related to FFPs, it appears that legal requirements that are not consistent with the national culture will not translate effectively into organizational policies and practices that provide the expected benefits for organizations or their employees. This suggests that it is very important for researchers to conceptualize FFPs through a cultural lens and to develop theories that consider how specific aspects of societal cultures influence FFP adoption and utilization. For example, previous studies expected that collectivist cultures would be more supportive of FFPs since these cultures emphasize group values and would be expected to care about employeesÕ needs (Ngo et al., 2009; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007), which would suggest that FFP adoption and utilization would be consis-

J.S. Kim, S.R. Faerman tent across all countries characterized by collectivist cultures. Our study, however, found that other cultural factors such as Confucian-based values had a much more significant influence on management practices and employeesÕ behaviors, and created additional disincentives for employees to utilize FFPs. Some researchers have argued that competing values within societies may lead similar policies to have different outcomes in different societies (Pfau-Effinger, 2005). In a similar vein, organizational researchers have consistently noted that organizations can have subcultures that differ in values based on the functions. However, much of the extant research on FFPs that examines culture tends to focus on either societal culture, as an external force (e.g., Lyness & Kropf, 2005; Peus & Traut-Mattausch, 2008), or organizational culture, as a variable that can be manipulated to develop a family-friendly culture (e.g., Thompson et al., 1999). The findings of this study suggest that societal culture may interact in complex ways with organizational cultures and that while governments may mandate FFPs in order to create more family-friendly cultures in organizations, paradoxically, the existence of a family-friendly culture may be necessary for the adoption of FFPs. In contrast to the expectations of several studies (e.g., Grandey, 2001; Ngo et al., 2009) that have argued the mere adoption of FFPs by itself might improve employeesÕ perception of organizational culture by increasing the level of perceived organizational support, results of this study suggest that simply adopting FFPs can leave employees feeling frustrated because they cannot use the existing program. Overall, our study, consistent with Thompson et al. (1999) work, found that a strong family-friendly culture is necessary for the establishment of FFPs. This suggests that research and theory development regarding the effectiveness of FFPs, which has relied on measures that simply ask respondents whether particular FFPs are provided by the organization, needs to instead develop models that focus on the extent to which employees are able to use FFPs. With respect to culture, two additional issues need to be considered. First, while existing studies have considered employeesÕ demographic characteristics or organizational size as important antecedents for the utilization of FFPs, findings of this study underscore the role that culture plays, both at societal and organizational levels. In their literature review of work and family research, Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, and Brinley (2005) call for additional model development and theory building. Our findings suggest that such models should include contextual conditions as well as recognize the complex interactions amongst elements of societal and organizational cultures. Second, our research shows that Korean societal culture is changing and that younger employees seem to be developing value orientations that are increasingly less aligned with Confucian values. This is consistent with OÕShea and KirraneÕs (2008) findings that ‘‘the stereotypical image of the male ÔbreadwinnerÕ and female career or housewife is fading’’ (p. 548). Similarly, Pfau-Effinger (2005) argues that changes in culture can occur if ‘‘contradictions in the arrangement are seized upon by certain social actors who endeavor to bring about change’’ (p. 13). Arguably, while women will always be involved in childbirth, future research and theory development related to FFPs need to consider changing

Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea gender roles and family structures as well as changing value orientations across different societies.

Implications for practice and policy In considering potential implications of our research for practice and policy, it is important to distinguish between adoption and implementation of FFPs in that the former is about what is being added to the list of HRM practices and the latter refers to how it is being integrated into the work lives of employees. The findings of this study clearly indicate that the current implementation of FFPs in Korea is not effective, which suggests that government agencies must think more about how to disseminate information about FFPs and also about what incentives are necessary to promote these programs. Given that laws and policies related to FFPs have been created to address social inequities in Korean societal culture, more efforts need to be made to ensure that programs that are adopted reflect intended values. Similarly, this study suggests that other related HRM practices need to be established to develop a familyfriendly culture as a necessary precondition for employeesÕ use of FFPs. Top management may want to consider allowing greater employee discretion in utilizing legislated FFPs to ensure that there are no career disadvantages (Eaton, 2003). To guarantee this, policy makers need to evaluate programs regularly to check that FFPs are actually usable and used by employees and to reward organizations that are successful in conveying norms and values that employees can use such programs. Ultimately, ‘‘norms must be changed, values disseminated, old ways of thinking replaced’’ (Grandey, 2001, p. 164) for the effective implementation of FFPs, and incentives will likely need to be offered to change these norms. Second, as noted above, this study indicates that changing value orientations among younger generations will require line managers and HR managers to address the likely increase in employeesÕ demand for FFPs. Moreover, with increasing female employment, more attention will need to be paid to workplace structures that were designed to fit the stereotype of male breadwinners (Peus & Traut-Mattausch, 2008). Thus, while culture is not easily changed (Grandey, 2001; Lewis, 1997; Pfau-Effinger, 2005), managers need to be aware that the drivers for change will not simply be government mandates, but also employees within the organization who are expecting new managerial practices to address their new value orientations. Finally, although the gap between the public and private sector with respect to cultural elements associated with employeesÕ use of FFPs was minimal, the data showed that norms were harsher for employees in the private organization and the attributions of why FFPs were not widely used were different. This finding suggests that approaches to invigorate FFPs might need to be different based on the sector. This is consistent with the general notion that cultural change needs to be sensitive to the current culture of the organization, including specific job characteristics and formal structures, but specifically addresses differences in norms and values between public and private sector organizations, as well as in the managerial practices that reflect these norms and values.

517

Limitations and areas for future research Several limitations associated with this study should be noted. First, the sample organizations of this study are large organizations and so are not necessarily representative of all organizations in Korea. Employees in small-sized firms or lower-level government agencies may, in fact, experience much more difficulty in attempting to use FFPs or even may have no accessibility to these programs. In addition, the interviews were mostly conducted with senior employees, and thus do not necessarily reflect the experiences of higher-level managers or younger employees. In addition, since late 1990s, Korean society has faced a high unemployment rate and there is an increasing number of temporary workers. As a result, individuals may become less concerned with issues associated with family-friendly cultures if they are more concerned with simply having a job. Thus, our data are limited with respect to time and context, and one must be cautious in attempting to generalize the findings of this study to other settings. In addition, although interviewees were guaranteed confidentiality, several employees expressed concern during the interviews about the possibility that their responses might bring some disadvantage to their organizations. It may be possible that the intervieweesÕ concerns affected their responses. Finally, given that original intention of this study was to explore the relationship among FFPs, culture, and organizational commitment (see Footnote #7), interview questions did not directly focus on the relationship between culture and the adoption of FFPs; rather, themes regarding culture emerged during the course of the interviews. The limitations of this study and several issues from the findings suggest steps for future research. First, similar studies conducted in other countries would add to our knowledge about the role of both societal and organizational culture in the utilization of FFPs. In order to examine differences in societal cultures, a cross-cultural approach should be used to examine how societal cultures play a role in employeesÕ use of FFPs and how such programs might need to be modified to fit into specific national cultures. Our findings also suggest that the interaction effect between societal and organizational culture should be studied with respect to employeesÕ use of FFPs. That is, how does organizational culture magnify or dampen the effects of societal culture with respect to employeesÕ intention to use and actual use of FFPs. Such studies could be conducted now, in countries where FFPs are better established or, in Korea as FFPs become better established and are more widely utilized. In addition, the findings of potential sectoral differences suggest that this might be an important area for future research. That is, how do differences in organizational conditions across sectors affect the adoption and utilization of these programs? In addition, subcultures in organizations also need to be examined, in that team climates, leadership styles of supervisors, the work that a department does, and the job status of employees may affect the utilization of FFPs. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we believe that research on FFPs needs to emphasize the impact of culture over legal and demographic variables, and should focus more on the following question: Under what conditions can FFPs be implemented

518

J.S. Kim, S.R. Faerman

effectively and associated with positive employeesÕ behaviors and organizational outcomes? Our findings indicate that culture is a key variable that needs to be included in more centrally in the study of FFPs.

3. Are there particular elements of organizational culture that are associated with family-friendly programs? (I will prompt a participant a little with respect to the meaning or example of culture if necessary)

Conclusion 4. How has the organizationÕs culture influenced the implementation of these programs?

This study examined the effect of societal and organizational culture on the utilization of FFPs in Korea. Findings of our study indicate that culture at the organizational and societal level plays a role as a key facilitator or barrier in putting FFPs into practice. Moreover, consistent with other research, our findings indicate that culture plays a stronger role in employeesÕ use of these programs than do laws and policies. When there is weak support from management and/or FFPs are seen as conflicting with existing cultural values and norms, FFPs will not be appropriately utilized and those who do take advantage of these programs will be stigmatized. Overall, our findings indicate that in order for FFPs to be more effectively utilized, more attention will need to be paid to the conflict between the values that the laws intend to convey and the values that are deeply rooted in Korean society.

- Has there been any change in terms of organizational culture since family-friendly programs have been implemented in this organization? - If so, how do you perceive the differences with respect to the organizational culture? 5. Do you think that Korean culture, in general, with our emphasis on the feeling of solidarity, has influenced the implementation of these programs? - Does Korean culture influence the way in which family-friendly programs are perceived by employees? 6. [Only for HR managers] Have there been any obstacles in implementing the programs? - If so, what are they? - Which aspects of this organization (e.g., structural/ relational/institutional/etc.) are they associated with?

Appendix A. Interview Questions I. Introduction

7. [Only for recipients] Have you taken advantages of the programs?

1. Introductory Remarks - Introduction of the research purpose

- If so, which program do you frequently take advantages of? - Are there any difficulties in making full use of the programs? - If so, what are they?

2. Casual questions - How long have you worked in your current position? - Overall, do you consider this a good place to work? Why or why not?

II. Family-friendly programs and organizational culture

III. OC and family-friendly programs9 1. To what degree do you feel you are psychologically linked with this organization? - Can you give me a specific example of an event or situation that led to your feeling linked to the organization? - Can you give me a specific example of an event or situation that led you to not feel linked or to feel less linked to the organization?

1. How would you describe your organizationÕs/departmentÕs/teamÕs culture? Are there differences in department and/or team cultures across the organization? If so, how do they differ? (Before asking this question, I will give some examples of manifestations of culture) - Is there any important value or assumption that guides peopleÕs behaviors in this organization? Is it important for employees to identify with the organizationÕs values?

2. Researchers who have studied organizations have identified three ways in which people feel linked to organizations. The first is that people feel emotionally attached to an organization; the second is that people feel personal

2. How does the organization define ‘‘family-friendly programs’’ in this organization? 9

- Could you give me any example of typical familyfriendly programs in this organization?

As noted in Footnote #7, as it became evident that FFPs were not well established in the organizations in this study, questions on organizational commitment were deemphasized.

Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea costs from investing in their membership of an organization; the third is that people feel loyalty or obligatory feelings to continue employment? Do any of these describe your feeling of attachment to this organization? In what ways?

519

3. Have the level and type of family-friendly programs offered in this organization influenced your commitment (attachment) to this work place? Closing question:

- If your feelings of attachment are from more than one of these types of links, is there any difference or order between them?

1. Is there anything else you would like to say about familyfriendly programs or any other questions you think I should be asking?

Appendix B. Coding structure Societal Culture (SC)

Organizational Culture (OC)

Adoption of FFPs (AD)

Sector (SEC)

Implementation of FFPs (IMP) Employee attitudes towards FFPs (ATT) Use of FFPs (USE)

Individual-level Characteristics (IC)

Seniority (elders, seniors) Strong gender norms (homemakers, born-carers, breadwinners)

Leadershiprelated (decision makers, top management)

(stability, legal protection vs. performance, productivity)

Existing values/ norms related (ideal workers, time, commitment, gender roles)

Gender Generation (youngster) Value orientation (personal values)

Other elements associated with FFPs (ETC) Legislation (statutory mandates) Training (information sharing) Evaluation (bottom-up assessment, punishment, reward)

Negative career consequences related (removal, promotion) Seniority (boss, supervisor) Note: Examples of key words associated with each code are presented in brackets.

Note: Examples of key words associated with each code are presented in brackets.

References Anderson, S., Coffey, B., & Byerly, R. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to workfamily conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28(6), 787–810. Aryee, S., Fields, D., & Luk, V. (1999). A cross-cultural test of a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Management, 25(4), 491–511. Aycan, Z., Al-Hamadi, A. B., Davis, A., & Budhwar, P. (2007). Cultural orientations and preferences for HRM policies and practices: The case of Oman. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1), 11–32. Bae, J. (1997). Beyond seniority-based systems: A paradigm shift in Korean HRM? Asia Pacific Business Review, 3(4), 82–110. Behson, S. J. (2005). The relative contribution of formal and informal organizational work-family support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 487–500. Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002). EmployeesÕ use of workfamily policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80(3), 813–845.

Brennan, D. (2007). Babies, budgets, and birthrates: Work/family policy in Australia 1996–2006. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 14(1), 31–57. Clark, S. C. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3), 348–365. Davis, A. E., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2006). Family-friendly organizations? Work and family programs in the 1990s. Work and Occupations, 33(2), 191–223. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223. Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 850–863. Durst, S. L. (1999). Assessing the effect of family friendly programs on public organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 19–33. Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism–collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3), 265–304. Eaton, S. C. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment, and perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 145–167.

520 Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 124–197. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University Press. Fried, M. (1998). Taking time: Parental leave policy and corporate culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Garibaldi de Hilal, A. V. (2006). Brazilian national culture, organizational culture, and cultural agreement. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(2), 139–167. Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2005). National culture and human resource management: Assumptions and evidence. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(6), 971–986. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Glass, J. (2004). Blessing or curse?: Work-family policies and motherÕs wage growth over time. Work and Occupations, 31(3), 367–394. Grandey, A. A. (2001). Family friendly policies: Organizational justice perceptions of need-based allocations. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.). Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 145–174). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gray, H. (2002). Family-friendly working: what a performance! An analysis of the relationship between the availability of familyfriendly policies and establishment performance. CEPDP, 529. London, UK: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science. Haas, L., Allard, K., & Hwang, P. (2002). The impact of organizational culture on menÕs use of parental leave in Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 5(3), 319–342. Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2001). Use of constant comparative analysis in qualitative research. Nursing Stand, 15(42), 39–42. Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2), 81–99. Hofstede, G. (1985). The interaction between national and organizational value systems. Journal of Management Studies, 22(4), 347–357. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). CultureÕs consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–21. Kanungo, R. N., & Jaeger, A. M. (1990). Introduction: The need for indigenous management in developing countries. In A. M. Jaeger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Management in developing countries (pp. 1–23). London: Routledge. Kim, S. (2005). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of public employees: A study of Seoul metropolitan government, Korea. Sex Roles, 52(9/10), 667–681. Kim, S. (2008). Women and family-friendly policies in Korean government. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(3), 463–476. Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. J. (2002). ‘‘The policy exists but you canÕt really use it’’: Communication and the structuration of workfamily policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 50–77. Lawler, J. J., & Bae, J. (1998). Overt employment discrimination by multinational firms: Cultural and economic influences in a developing country. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 37(2), 126–152. Laurent, A. (1986). The cross-cultural puzzle of international human resource management. Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91–102.

J.S. Kim, S.R. Faerman Leat, M., & El-Kot, G. (2007). HRM practices in Egypt: The influence of national context? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1), 147–158. Lee, B., & Kim, J. (2009). A study of the effect of family-supportive programs over organizational performance. Korean Journal of Industrial Relations, 19(2), 153–175. Lee, M., Lee, Y., & Han, J. (2008). Study of the predictors and outcomes of family-friendly practices. Quarterly Journal of Labor Policy, 8(4), 183–214. Lee, Y., Bang, M., & Oah, S. (2005). The effect of family supportive organizational culture on organizational commitment, work satisfaction, turnover intention and family life satisfaction: The mediating effect of work-family conflict focused. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 18(3), 639–657. Lewis, S. (1997). ÔFamily friendlyÕ employment policies: A route to changing organizational culture or playing about at the margins? Gender, Work, and Organization, 4(1), 13–23. Lyness, K. S., & Kropf, M. B. (2005). The relationship of national gender equality and organizational support with work-family balance: A study of European managers. Human Relations, 58(1), 33–60. Magoshi, E., & Chang, E. (2009). Diversity management and the effects on employeesÕ organizational commitment: Evidence from Japan and Korea. Journal of World Business, 44, 31–40. McSweeney, B. (2002). HofstedeÕs model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, Republic of Korea (2006). A research on family friendliness index: Development and measurement. Seoul: MOGEF. Mumford, K. A., & Budd, J. W. (2006). Family-friendly work practices in Britain: Availability and perceived accessibility. Human Resource Management, 45(1), 91–110. Ngo, H., Foley, S., & Loi, R. (2009). Family friendly work practices, organizational climate, and firm performance: A study of multinational corporations in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 665–680. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Family Database (2012). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/social/ family/database. OÕShea, D., & Kirrane, M. (2008). The transmission of work-related attitudes: A social-learning analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 524–557. Pemberton, C. (1995). Organizational culture and equalities work. In J. Shaw & D. Perrons (Eds.), Making gender work, managing equal opportunities (pp. 108–123). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Work-family human resource bundles and perceived organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1107–1117. Peus, C., & Traut-Mattausch, E. (2008). Manager and mommy?: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 558–575. Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005). Culture and welfare states: Reflections on a complex interrelation. Journal of Social Policy, 34(1), 3–20. Poelmans, S. A. Y., & Beham, B. (2008). Reviewing policies for harmonizing work, family, and personal life. In S. A. Y. Poelmans & P. Caligiuri (Eds.), Harmonizing work, family, and personal life: From policy to practice (pp. 19–38). UK: Cambridge University Press. Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M., & Ling, Y. (2009). Toward culturesensitive theories of the work-family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(5), 597–616. Pylkka ¨nen, E., & Smith, N. (2004). The impact of family-friendly policies in Denmark and Sweden on mothersÕ career interruptions due to childbirth. SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from http:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=522282.

Exploring the relationship between culture and family-friendly programs (FFPs) in the Republic of Korea Raghuram, S., London, M., & Larsen, H. H. (2001). Flexible employment practices in Europe: Country versus culture. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(5), 738–753. Rainey, H. G. (1997). Understanding and managing public organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rainey, H. G., & Bozeman, B. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–470. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Saltzstein, A. L., Ting, Y., & Saltzstein, G. H. (2001). Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 452–467. Sathe, V. (1985). How to decipher and change corporate culture. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 230–261). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Schneider, S. C. (1988). National vs. corporate culture: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 27(2), 231–246. Schuler, R. S., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Understanding compensation practice variations across firms: The impact of national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 159–177. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339–358. Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., OÕDriscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., Siu, O. L., Dewe, P., Hart, P., Lu, L. De., Moraes, L. F. R., Ostrognay, G. M., Sparks, K., Wong, P., & Yu, S. (2004). A cross-national study of work-family stressors, working hours, and well-being: China, and Latin America versus the Anglo world. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 19–142. Still, M. C., & Strang, D. (2003). Institutionalizing family-friendly policies. In P. Moen (Ed.), ItÕs about time (pp. 288–309). New York: Cornell University Press. Stone, D. L., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Lukaszewski, K. M. (2007). The impact of cultural values on the acceptance and effectiveness of human resource management policies and practices. Human Resource Management Review, 17(2), 152–165. Stone-Romero, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (2007). Cognitive, affective, and cultural influences on stigmatization: Impact on human resource management processes and practices. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 26, 111–161. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Ground theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Syed, J., & Ozbilgin, M. (2009). A relational framework for international transfer of diversity management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(12), 2435–2453. Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of workfamily culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392–415.

521

Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, crosscultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 426–478. United Nations Development Programme (2011). Sustainability and equity: A better future for all (Explanatory note on 2011 Human Development Report composite indices). Retrieved from http:// hdrstats.undp.org/images/explanations/KOR.pdf. Veiga, J. F., Baldridge, D. C., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Toward understanding employee reluctance to participate in familyfriendly programs. Human Resource Management Review, 14(3), 337–351. Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., Shi, K., Walumbwa, F., & Piao, M. (2008). Family-friendly employment practices: Importance and effects in India, Kenya, and China. Advances in International Management, 21, 235–265. Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60(2), 397–427. Wise, S., & Bond, S. (2003). Work-life policy: Does it do exactly what it says on the tin? Women in Management Review, 18(1), 20–31. Wood, S. J., de Menezes, L. M., & Lasaosa, A. (2003). Familyfriendly management in Great Britain: Testing various perspectives. Industrial Relations, 42(2), 221–250. Yoo, G., & Choi, H. (2009). Strategies to improve family-friendly policies of organizations in public sectors. Korean Journal of Family Relations, 13(4), 75–103. Zhang, Y. B., Lin, M., Nonaka, A., & Beom, K. (2005). Harmony, hierarchy and conservatism: A cross-cultural comparison of Confucian values in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Communication Research Reports, 22(2), 107–115.

JI SUNG KIM is a doctoral candidate in public administration at the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Public Policy, University at Albany, SUNY, USA. Her concentration is organizational behavior and theory and her research interests include organizational culture, employeesÕ job attitudes, employeesÕ work-life balance, and qualitative methods in public administration. She is currently working on her dissertation titled ‘‘How cultural elements are reflected in policy discourse regarding work-life balance: Policy discourse as an indicator of Korean culture.’’

SUE FAERMAN is Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Distinguished Teaching Professor of Public Administration and Policy at the University at Albany—SUNY. Her teaching and research focus on the paradoxical nature of management and issues associated with women and leadership. She currently serves as Academic Chair of the WomenÕs Leadership Academy at the University at AlbanyÕs Center for Women in Government and Civil Society.