Milking the Organization?
The Effect of Breastfeeding
Accommodation on
Perceived Fairness and
Organizational Attractiveness
ABSTRACT. The paper presents the results of two
vignette studies that examine how company breast-
feeding accommodation influences ratings of organi-
zational attractiveness and work-related intentions.
North American business students and employees
engaged in long-term employment found organiza-
tions that accommodate breastfeeding to be more fair,
attractive, and were more likely to apply to them, and
accept jobs from them, than organizations that did
not accommodate. Effects were stronger for female
participants than for male participants. Female par-
ticipants without children indicated lower support for
breastfeeding accommodation than female participants
with children and male participants.
KEY WORDS: breastfeeding accommodation,
employee recruitment, fairness, family-responsive
policies, organizational attractiveness, resentment
Gerard H. Seijts is an assistant professor of
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource
Management at the Richard Ivey School of Business,
University of Western Ontario, Canada. He received
his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. His research
interests include motivation, performance management,
training and development, organizational justice, and
teams. His research has been published in journals
including Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Human Performance, International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, Journal of Business
Ethics, Applied Psychology: An International
Review, among others.
Journal of Business Ethics 40: 113, 2002.
2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Gerard H. Seijts
Introduction
Numerous studies have shown that infants
who are fed breast-milk have more robust health
than infants who are formula-fed for the first 6
to 12 months of their lives (e.g., American
Academy of Paediatrics, 1997; Campbell, 1996;
Cunningham et al., 1991). Government agencies
(e.g., U.S. Federal Government; Health Canada)
as well as professional associations (e.g., American
Academy of Paediatrics; Canadian Paediatric
Society) have endorsed the practice of breast-
feeding. The workplace, however, both in struc-
ture and policies, is often not supportive of
mothers who, upon return from maternity leave,
want to continue to breastfeed their children. For
example, the logistics of breastfeeding could, in
some situations, give rise to a structural conflict
between breastfeeding and work (e.g., Kurinij et
al., 1989; Roe et al., 1999). First, the frequency
and intensity of breastfeeding a child are likely to
be variable and unpredictable. Second, breast-
feeding requires the mother and her child to be
together, which may not always be possible in a
job. Third, employers may be concerned about
lowered productivity because they believe that
breastfeeding is time-consuming and/or breast-
feeding employees cant focus their attention on
the job. Fourth, breastfeeding may distract co-
workers.
Scholars and practitioners have attributed
the declining proportion of nursing mothers
in North America, in part, to the increased
female participation in the workforce, and have
2 Gerard H. Seijts
expressed concern that it often proves difficult
for working mothers to breastfeed because of
barriers in the workplace (e.g., Roe et al., 1999;
Visness and Kennedy, 1997). However, it is not
impossible for organizations to take steps aimed
at easing nursing mothers transition back to
work, and to create a climate that is supportive
of breastfeeding, through the process of reason-
able accommodation.
The main purpose of the two studies
conducted was to investigate the effect of pro-
viding accommodation to nursing mothers on
fairness perceptions and work-related intentions.
Reactions of job-seekers or pre-entry employees
(student sample) as well as individuals engaged
in long-term employment (employee sample)
were examined. Also, gender effects and possible
differences between potential beneficiaries
of accommodation and non-beneficiaries were
explored.
No prior studies have investigated whether
breastfeeding accommodation affects perceived
fairness and work-related intentions, and if so,
in what direction. It is unfortunate that human
resource practitioners, managers, and scholars
have largely neglected breastfeeding accommo-
dation since the practice affects many individuals,
either directly or indirectly. For example, data
from the United States show that at least 50
percent of women who are employed when they
become pregnant return to the workforce by
the time their children are 3 months old (e.g.,
Klerman and Leibowitz, 1990). Canadian statis-
tics indicate that 61 percent of mothers that have
one or more children under the age of 3 were
working in 1999 (Statistics Canada, 2000). A
number of recent court cases in Canada illus-
trate that not only is devoting attention to breast-
feeding accommodation timely, but also that
organizations can incur costs (e.g., bad press, and
financial penalties) for failure to provide such
accommodation.
Providing accommodation in the workplace,
however, is an emotionally charged issue. For
example, as the number of accommodations
increases, so does the potential for negative reac-
tions by co-workers. Since there has been no
prior research on breastfeeding accommodation
in the workplace, it is worthwhile to examine
the relationships between this form of accom-
modation, perceptions of fairness, work-related
intentions, and various demographic variables.
Rationale for accommodating worker needs
Reasonable accommodation deals with the
adjustment of employment policies and practices
so that no person is disadvantaged for employ-
ment opportunities, denied benefits, or blocked
from carrying out the essential components of a
job because of gender, race, colour, or disability.
There are at least three reasons for accommo-
dating the needs of nursing mothers, and to
improve employees breastfeeding experiences at
work.
Legal and social issues. An unwillingness to accom-
modate individuals often carries the risk of
negative outcomes imposed on organizations by
government and society. For example, in some
cases, employers have a legal obligation to
provide some level of accommodation (see, for
example, the Americans with Disabilities Act),
and failure to do so could lead to fines and other
forms of punishment. Moreover, the social
climate in which organizations operate has
ramifications for the kinds of non-legal obliga-
tions that nonetheless require their attention
(e.g., Cleveland et al., 1997; Colella, 2001). For
example, societal norms regarding the fair
treatment of employees typically include the
expectation that employers provide for individual
employee needs.
Organizational climate. Positive outcomes of
accommodation may include fostering good
public relations and developing a positive
employee-oriented organizational climate, which,
in turn, have the potential to attract and retain
individuals (e.g., Cleveland et al., 1997; Grover
and Crooker, 1995). For example, permitting
employees to take time off for family responsi-
bilities may result in work time lost. However,
the consequences of not showing a concern
for employees needs may have a negative effect
on employees attitudes and subsequent work
behaviors. For example, nursing mothers job
 Breastfeeding Accommodation
satisfaction may decrease if they find it hard to
breastfeed in the workplace and/or encounter
opposition from colleagues or management.
Financial issues. There is accumulating evidence
that accommodating breastfeeding employees
may have a positive effect on the organizations
bottom-line. For example, Cohen et al. (1995)
compared breastfeeding and formula-feeding
among mothers working in either a utilities
company or an aeronautics corporation. Cohen
et al. found that infants who were receiving
breast-milk had lower rates and less severe
episodes of common infant illnesses than
those who were formula-fed. One-day absences
occurred more than twice as often among
formula-feeding mothers than breastfeeding
mothers. These findings provide support for the
assertion that programs attempting to improve
infant health bring about a reduction in maternal
absenteeism.
The paper proceeds as follows. First, the
hypotheses tested, and their theoretical rationales,
are explained. Second, the methods and results
of Study 1 involving pre-entry employees are
described. Third, a second study was conducted
to assess whether the student-based findings
obtained in Study 1 are generalizable to the
broader population of working adults. The
findings obtained in Study 2 involving an actual
employee sample are presented. Fourth, the
implications of the results for organizations are
outlined. Fifth, the potential limitations of the
two studies are discussed.
Hypotheses and theoretical background
An organizations practices and social policies
have the potential to attract individuals through
serving as signals about working conditions
by denoting certain organizational values and
norms. Signals about working conditions are
especially relevant in situations where individuals
have incomplete information about the organi-
zation (e.g., Rynes, 1991, 1993). Because an
organizations corporate social performance in
general, and specific human resource manage-
ment policies in particular, are thought to signal
3
certain values and norms to prospective
employees, it seems plausible that these policies
can affect an applicants perceptions of working
conditions and, therefore, the attractiveness of
the organization as an employer (e.g., Albinger
and Freeman, 2000; Turban and Greening,
1996).
It was expected that potential applicants
rate organizations that engage in socially respon-
sible actions such as making an effort to accom-
modate the needs of breastfeeding employees
as more attractive than organizations that
do not accommodate breastfeeding employees.
Accommodation signals corporate concern for
the welfare of mother and child, which, in
turn, could be construed positively by potential
applicants. It was anticipated, however, that
female participants in childbearing years would
respond more intensely to accommodation than
their male counterparts, since the former are
more likely to be directly affected by accommo-
dation than the latter. This prediction is consis-
tent with Bazermans (1998) notion of the
ego-centric bias which suggests that beneficiaries
and potential beneficiaries of resource distribu-
tion schemes evaluate those schemes as more
favourable compared to individuals who do not
benefit from them, regardless of the objective
fairness of the mechanisms used to implement
the schemes. For example, in an academic
institution, Grover (1991) found that faculty
members who would benefit from a parental
leave policy perceived the policy as more fair, and
held more positive attitudes toward leave takers,
than did individuals who would not benefit from
the policy. It was thus expected that concerns
regarding an equitable distribution of resources
would lead males to be less favourable about
accommodation than females since nursing
mothers get potential benefits that no other male
organizational citizen gets. The following
hypotheses were thus tested:
Hypothesis 1: Organizations that accommo-
date the needs of their breastfeeding
employees will be perceived as more attrac-
tive employers than organizations that do
not accommodate their breastfeeding
employees.
4 Gerard H. Seijts
Hypothesis 2: Gender moderates the relation-
ship between breastfeeding accommodation
and organizational attractiveness. That is,
female participants report higher attraction
to accommodating organizations than male
participants.
A second purpose of the research was to
investigate through which mechanisms accom-
modation affects perceived organizational attrac-
tiveness. Fairness perceptions may help to
explain this relationship. An important contri-
bution of organizational justice models to the
organizational behavior and human resource
management literature is that they help explain
and predict individuals attitudes, intentions,
and subsequent behaviors toward particular
organizational practices (e.g., Collella, 2001;
Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Konovsky, 2000).
Organizational justice theories have been applied
to several human resource management practices
including, but not limited to, selection, perfor-
mance appraisal, and discipline.
Accommodating the needs of breastfeeding
employees was expected to affect perceptions of
fairness. Some people may feel that accommo-
dation, or modifying workplace rules, removes
employment barriers, hence creates equitable
conditions. Theories of organizational justice
predict that individuals have more positive atti-
tudes toward organizations and management
practices that are perceived as treating employees
in a fair manner. Thus, providing accommoda-
tion to those individuals in need should,
theoretically, positively affect organizational
attractiveness because it promotes the image of
an organization treating its employees well.
Individuals who believe that a reluctance to
provide special accommodation violates fairness
principles will rate the organization as less (or not
more) attractive. The third hypothesis was there-
fore as follows:
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between rea-
sonable accommodation and perceived
organizational attractiveness is mediated by
fairness perceptions.
Study 1
Method
Participants
Senior undergraduate business students, 66 males
and 79 females, enrolled at a North-American
university participated in Study 1. Senior students
were chosen as participants because they were in
the job market. It is not unreasonable to expect
that a large number of job seekers incorporate
the presence of particular family-friendly policies
in their job choice decision since they, as
organizational members, are potential users of
such policies. Applicants perceptions of various
human resource management practices have
become the focus of considerable research
because of the potential influences such percep-
tions have on applicant attitude, intention, and
subsequent behavior (e.g., Arvey and Sackett,
1993; Ployhart and Ryan, 1998).
The average age of the participants was 22.6
years (SD = 3.2), and they had an average of 6.7
years (SD = 4.3) of part-time or full-time work
experience. Four of the 145 participants indi-
cated they have children. Thirty-seven partici-
pants reported that their current employer does
not have a specific policy that encourages
employees to breastfeed in the workplace, and
103 participants indicated that they did not know
whether such a policy exists in the organization.
Three participants reported that their current
employer has implemented special measures that
facilitate breastfeeding in the workplace.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of
two conditions: a description of an organization
that did (N = 71) or did not (N = 74) accom-
modate breastfeeding employees (see Procedure
and Manipulations). Randomization was successful
in that males and females were distributed in
approximately equal proportion across conditions.
Procedure
Participants were asked to read a 3-page
scenario that described the difficulties a fictional
employee, Amy Harvey, encountered when she
returned to her job from maternity leave. The
information contained in the scenario described
that Amys son was brought to her workplace for
 Breastfeeding Accommodation
1.5 hours every workday for the purpose of being
breast-fed. Amy had consulted with her super-
visor and several other employees who worked
in close geographical proximity to her worksta-
tion prior to bringing her son into the work-
place. All were in agreement that it would not
create any significant difficulties if she brought
her son into the workplace over the lunch
period.
After a company-sponsored seminar, however,
the HR director received several complaints
about the fact that Amy breast-fed her son during
the seminar. Complaints were received from indi-
viduals who had attended the seminar, and who
objected to Amy breastfeeding in the company
of both males and females. In response to
these complaints, the instructions stated, the HR
director advised the coordinator of the seminar
series and Amys supervisor that it would no
longer be appropriate for employees to breastfeed
their children during events sponsored by the
company. Amys supervisor communicated this
position to her, and, in addition, asked her to
breastfeed her son in a location other than the
workplace for a period of about 3 weeks in the
hopes the controversy in the company over her
breastfeeding would cool down.
In a meeting with the director of human
resources, Amy explained that the direction
she had received made it difficult, if not impos-
sible, for her to attend noon-hour programs.
Furthermore, she explained that if she were not
able to breastfeed her son at work during the
noon-hour, she would have to choose between
two options. First, not being able to work at her
desk through the noon-hour if the needs of the
job demanded it (e.g., completing a high priority
or rush project) or missing a company-sponsored
event. Second, missing a scheduled feeding for
her son and thus possibly suffering the negative
experiences associated with it (e.g., a missed or
late feeding could result in her breasts starting
to leak, which, in turn, would cause embarrass-
ment).
The scenario was based, in part, on an actual
court case (Poirier v. British Columbia Ministry
of Municipal Affairs, Recreation, and Housing,
1997). The case involved an employee, Poirier,
launching a human rights complaint against
5
her employer, the British Columbia Ministry
of Municipal Affairs, Recreation, and Housing
for refusing to let her breastfeed during a
staff workshop. The British Columbia Human
Rights Tribunal ruled that the Ministry had
discriminated against the employee because of
her sex when it refused to allow her to breast-
feed her child in the workplace. The Ministry
provided no accommodation. The specific
actions that the Ministry undertook, as well as
examples of accommodation, are explained under
Manipulations. Using a real-life incident was
expected to enhance experimental realism.
Participants completed a questionnaire that
contained measures of the dependent and inter-
vening variables after reading the scenarios, and
all were assured anonymity of their responses.
Manipulations. The manipulations were embedded
in the experimental materials. The manipulations
were introduced after Amy met with the HR
director to discuss her concerns regarding the
directive that she had received.
Non-accommodation. The HR director advised
Amy that she should advise her supervisor of the
dilemma that she encountered and that she try
to arrange time to breastfeed her child before or
after the noon-hour session. These instructions
are consistent with the series of events that
unfolded in the Poirier v. British Columbia
Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation, and
Housing court case.
Accommodation. The HR director felt the
company had an obligation to accommodate
the physical realities of its female employees.
Management thus implemented a program that
would accommodate its nursing employees by
offering them a private room in which they
could breastfeed. The room contained two breast
pumps, a refrigerator, a sink, and several desks
at which women could work while breastfeeding.
Supplying breastfeeding employees with breast
pumps also allowed them to send the milk
home by courier. Management also offered its
employees the services of a lactation consultant.
These elements of a lactation program were taken
from Faught (1994) and Gemignani (1997). The
6 Gerard H. Seijts

breastfeeding room that was described in the
scenario involves a significant accommodation for
an organization to provide.
Measures
Individuals were expected to respond based on
self-interest or with harshness toward others.
This is because there were conflicting justice
perceptions. Neither of these responses (self-
interest, harshness) seems particularly desirable,
and suggests that the participants had to answer
with a certain candor.
Dependent variable. The dependent variable was
perceived attractiveness of the organization. This
construct was measured using two 7-point
Likert-type items (e.g., the breastfeeding policy
in this company would encourage me to accept
a position if I were offered one). The items were
adapted from Ployhart and Ryans (1997) research
on applicant reactions to selection procedures.
Scale scores could range from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (7); the label on the
midpoint of the scale was neutral (4).
Intervening variable. The intervening variable was
perceived fairness of the accommodation
described in the scenario. This construct was
measured using four 7-point Likert-type items
(e.g., the policy toward employees who want
to breastfeed at work implemented by this
company is fair). The items were adapted from
Gilliland (1994) and Greenberg (1994). Scale
scores could range from strongly disagree (1)
to strongly agree (7); the label on the midpoint
of the scale was neutral (4). The four items
reflected distributive justice.
Results and discussion
The coefficient alphas, means, standard devia-
tions, and inter-correlations for the variables
measured are presented in Table I.
A 2 (non-accommodation, accommodation)
2 (male, female) ANOVA on perceived organi-
zational attractiveness was conducted to test
Hypotheses 1 and 2. The results showed a
significant main effect for accommodation,
F(1, 143) = 27.68, p < 0.001. Participants rated
organizations that accommodated the needs of
breastfeeding employees more attractive (M =
4.69, SD = 1.26) than organizations that did not
accommodate their employees (M = 3.46, SD =
1.39). Moreover, as predicted, a significant two-
way interaction between accommodation and
gender was found, F(1, 143) = 3.84, p < 0.05.
The means reported in Table II suggest that the
effect of accommodation on attractiveness is
stronger for female participants than for male

TABLE I
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations among variables

M SD 1 2 3 4

Student sample
1. Age 22.56 3.19
2. Work experience 06.71 4.33 0.62***
3. Fairness perceptions 04.81 1.14 0.01*** 0.03 0.79***
4. Organizational attractiveness 04.00 1.38 0.08*** 0.02 0.60*** 0.95

Employee sample
1. Age 36.28 8.89
2. Work experience 16.94 8.00 0.92***
3. Fairness perceptions 04.63 1.41 0.05*** 0.05 0.76***

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. N = 145 for student sample and N = 100 for employee sample.
Coefficient alphas are indicated on the diagonal.
 Breastfeeding Accommodation 7

TABLE II
Means and standard deviations for the dependent variables

Non-accommodation Accommodation

M SD M SD

Student sample
Organizational attractiveness
Females 3.39 1.43 5.00 1.24
Males 3.52 1.36 4.25 1.16
Fairness Perceptions
Females 4.06 1.09 5.67 0.77
Males 3.96 0.78 5.43 0.66

Employee sample
Fairness Perceptions
Females 3.81 1.11 5.32 1.16
Males 3.98 1.19 5.22 1.44

TABLE III
Results of the 3-step mediated regression analysis for accommodation and fairness perceptions predicting
organizational attractiveness

Step Dependent variable Independent variable t R2 F dfs

1. Fairness Accommodation 0.67 10.89** 0.45 118.67 1, 143**

2. Attractiveness Accommodation 0.42 5.55** 0.18 30.83 1, 141**
3. Attractiveness Accommodation 0.01 0.05** 0.40 45.77 2, 140**
Fairness 0.63 7.07**

Note. * p < 0.01 and ** p < 0.001.

participants. The difference between females and
males on the attractiveness measure was not sig-
nificant in the non-accommodation condition,
t(48) = 0.14, p > 0.05. However, a significant
difference between females and males emerged in
the accommodation condition, t(50) = 2.86,
p < 0.01. Females reported higher attractiveness
scores than males. Support was thus obtained for
Hypotheses 1 and 2.
Hypothesis 3 stated that perceptions of fairness
mediate the effect of accommodation on orga-
nizational attractiveness. The procedures advo-
cated by Baron and Kenny (1986) were used to
test the mediation hypothesis. Table III shows the
results of the mediation analysis. Fairness per-
ceptions mediated the relationship between
accommodation and organizational attractiveness
because a non-significant relationship between
accommodation and organizational attractiveness
emerged once fairness was included in the third
equation. The results thus provide support for
Hypothesis 3.
A number of alternative models were tested.
For example, the relationship between accom-
modation, perceived fairness, and organizational
attractiveness could be conceptualized as one of
mediated moderation, where fairness changes the
direction of the relationship between accommo-
dation and organizational attractiveness. For indi-
viduals that see the accommodation as fair,
8 Gerard H. Seijts
accommodation will raise organizational attrac-
tiveness; for those that see accommodation as
unfair, accommodation will lower attractiveness.
No empirical support, however, was obtained for
alternative models.
The results of Study 1 suggest that breast-
feeding accommodating can have a positive effect
on fairness. Fairness beliefs, in turn, can affect
organizational attractiveness. The results also
indicated that female participants tend to perceive
accommodating organizations as more attractive
than their male counterparts. The latter finding
is consistent with the idea that accommodation
tends to affect females to a larger extent than
males, hence, the former is expected to report a
more intense response than the latter. It should
be acknowledged, however, that the average
fairness and attractiveness ratings of males in the
accommodating condition were above 4.0, indi-
cating little disapproval or resentment.
A potential limitation of Study 1 is that pre-
entry employees were used to test the hypotheses.
It is unclear to what extent the student-based
findings are generalizable to the broader popula-
tion of working adults. It could be argued, for
example, that pre-entry employees are somewhat
naive and idealistic, hence that the findings
obtained have narrow application. It is also ques-
tionable to what extent childless individuals
evaluate potential employers using breastfeeding
accommodation as a criterion since most partic-
ipants would not have had direct experience
with at least some of the difficulties surrounding
breastfeeding in the workplace. Whether the
findings obtained in Study 1 are generalizable to
the broader population of working adults is an
empirical question that requires comparisons over
different studies. The main purpose of Study 2
was to test the hypotheses involving relationships
between reasonable accommodation and percep-
tions of fairness using individuals engaged in full-
time employment and who have children.
Study 2
There are several important similarities between
senior students and full-time employees, hence
it was expected that the effects obtained in Study
1 using students would generalize to an employee
sample. First, most students are working while in
university. For example, the self-reported average
work experience of the student participants in
Study 1 was 6.7 years. The student participants,
therefore, can be expected to have some appre-
ciation for organizational life. Second, a large
number of the student participants will become
full-time employees soon after graduation. Third,
senior students as well as employees engaged in
long-term employment may have been con-
fronted with breastfeeding in public places in
general and breastfeeding in the workplace in
particular at some point in time.
Study 2 was similar to Study 1 with two
exceptions. First, the main dependent variable in
Study 2 was perceived fairness of the breast-
feeding accommodation. Second, the number of
participants with children was expected to be
higher in Study 2 than in Study 1 since working
adults were sampled. The question as to whether
childless workers are resentful about breastfeeding
accommodation could therefore be explored.
Colella (2001) argued that, in order to effectively
implement workplace accommodations, an
understanding how co-workers and other stake-
holders in the accommodation process react to
the accommodation is required. Accommodation
of individuals tends to be a resource allocation
decision (e.g., co-workers believe that money
spent on an accommodation could have been
spent on a new printer machine), and therefore,
can affect the actual or perceived outcomes of
their peers (e.g., Colella et al., 2001).
As discussed earlier, and given self-interest
motives, individuals who do not benefit from
accommodation and breastfeeding policies may
be more likely to report resentment manifested
in less positive attitudes about the organization
and its policies than individuals who do benefit
from these policies (e.g., Grover, 1991). In par-
ticular, women without children may be more
adamant about a breastfeeding employee getting
certain benefits that no other organizational
citizen gets than men because they are more
similar to the individual getting the benefits. This
argument is consistent with research that shows
that individuals are especially concerned with
fairness, or the lack thereof, when they identify
 Breastfeeding Accommodation
(e.g., on the basis of gender) with the person
being accommodated (e.g., Colella et al., 2001;
Brockner et al., 1987). The hypotheses tested in
Study 2 were thus as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Organizational policies that
accommodate the needs of breastfeeding
employees will be perceived as more fair
than organizational policies that do not
accommodate the needs of breastfeeding
employees.
Hypothesis 2: Gender moderates the relation-
ship between breastfeeding accommodation
and perceptions of fairness. That is, female
participants report higher fairness of orga-
nizational policies that accommodate the
needs of breastfeeding employees than male
participants.
Hypothesis 3: Female participants who do not
have children view organizational policies
that accommodate the needs of breast-
feeding employees as less fair than female
participants who do have children.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 100 bank employees,
city workers, and middle managers enrolled in a
Mid-Management program offered at a North-
American university. The average age of the
participants was 36.3 years (SD = 8.9), and they
had an average of 16.9 years (SD = 8.0) of full-
time work experience. The number of males and
females was 55 and 44, respectively. Fifty-eight
participants reported that they have children; 3
participants did not indicate whether they have
children. Participants were randomly assigned to
one of two conditions: a description of an orga-
nization that did (N = 50) or did not (N = 50)
accommodate breastfeeding individuals. Males
and females were distributed in approximately
equal proportion across conditions.
Materials
The materials used in Study 2 were identical to
the materials used in Study 1. A cover letter
explaining the research procedures was included
with the materials.
9
Procedure
Participants were assured that their responses
would be confidential, and that their responses
would have no implications whatsoever for their
current employer. Two companies requested the
question pertaining to the presence or absence of
policies regarding breastfeeding in the workplace
to be eliminated from the questionnaire. Their
request was honored. All participants were asked
to put themselves in the shoes of an employee
working for the company described in the
scenario.
Measures
Dependent variable. The dependent variable
was perceived fairness of the accommodation.
Fairness perceptions were measured using the
four 7-point Likert-type items described in
Study 1.
Results and discussion
The descriptive statistics for the variables
measured and the inter-correlations are shown in
Table I. The coefficient alpha for the fairness
scale was adequate ( = 0.76).
A 2 (non-accommodation, accommodation)
2 (male, female) ANCOVA on fairness percep-
tions was conducted to test Hypotheses 1 and 2.
A significant main effect for accommodation on
fairness perceptions was found, F(1, 94) = 27.35,
p < 0.001. The means reported in Table II
indicate that participants in the accommodation
condition reported higher perceptions of fairness
(M = 5.27, SD = 1.31) than participants in
the non-accommodation condition (M = 3.89,
SD = 1.15). These results provide support
for Hypothesis 1. The interaction between
accommodation and gender was not significant,
F(1, 94) = 0.26, p > 0.05. Hypothesis 2 was
therefore rejected.
A 2 (male, female) 2 (children, no children)
ANCOVA on fairness perceptions in the accom-
modation condition was conducted to test
Hypothesis 3. The results indicated an interac-
tion between gender and children on fairness
perceptions that approached significance, F(1, 47)
= 2.85, p = 0.09. The means in Table IV
10 Gerard H. Seijts

TABLE IV
Means and standard deviations for protest intention: Gender children interaction

Participants with children Participants without children

M SD M SD

Females 5.88 0.58 4.61 1.24

Males 5.20 1.58 5.29 1.07

indicate that female participants without children
reported the lowest perceptions of fairness.
Moderate support was thus obtained for
Hypothesis 3.
The results obtained in Study 2 are, for
the most part, consistent with those obtained
in Study 1. Individuals engaged in long-term
employment reported higher perceptions of
fairness regarding organizational policies that
accommodated the needs of breastfeeding
employees relative to policies that did not accom-
modate. The results provided partial support for
potential resentment of accommodation. Female
participants engaged in long-term employment,
and who indicated that they did not have
children, reported lower perceptions of fairness
than female participants with children and male
participants. This finding provides support for
the assertion that self-interest motives can affect
evaluations of fairness and organizational attrac-
tiveness.
General discussion
As more and more mothers of young children
work outside the home, the need for supportive
breastfeeding policies at work becomes evident.
A small but growing number of organizations
have begun to offer lactation programs that make
it easier for mothers to breastfeed their children.
The results of Studies 1 and 2 show that accom-
modating breastfeeding employees can have a
positive effect on perceptions of fairness and
organizational attractiveness.
The results of Study 1 have potential implica-
tions for an organizations recruitment process.
Accommodation was positively related to per-
ceptions of fairness and intentions to submit a
resume and to accept a job offer. Organizations
ought to be interested in the finding that accom-
modation is related to senior students work atti-
tudes and intentions. This is because the students
are representative of the future labor pool, and
attracting and retaining talented individuals is
important for organizational success. Canada and
the United States have one of the worst mater-
nity provisions among Western countries, hence
implementing breastfeeding policies, and accom-
modating the needs of breastfeeding employees,
could be one of several potential strategies to
create a competitive human resource manage-
ment advantage.
The results of Study 2 showed a more complex
picture. Actual organizational citizens that read
the same scenarios indicated higher perceptions
of fairness when the organization accommodated
the needs of breastfeeding employees. However,
a factor that affected reactions to accommoda-
tion was whether the participants reported
to have children. The findings obtained
suggest that individuals who do not directly
benefit from breastfeeding accommodation
(i.e., childless individuals) could be against
a nursing mother getting particular benefits.
Accommodation could be opposed because dis-
tributive justice perceptions are violated. That is,
certain benefits are given to a selected group of
employees, breastfeeding employees, while others
may incur costs such as having to cover for an
employee during breastfeeding or having to give
up the lunch time break room. In particular,
female participants who indicated that they did
not have children reported the lowest perceptions
of fairness. This finding thus provides some
empirical support for possible resentment toward
 Breastfeeding Accommodation
accommodation, even though the effect size
appeared small.
It should be acknowledged, however, that the
empirical literature provides mixed support for
resentment toward family-friendly policies. For
example, Rothausen et al. (1998) argued that
the family-friendly backlash is a more a media-
sensationalized issue than a real one. First, the
policies may be too insignificant to impact vari-
ables such as employee attitudes and intentions.
For example, in the real world, where several
other variables may influence attitudes, inten-
tions, and subsequent behavior, it is unclear
whether accommodation truly matters, and if so,
to what extent. Second, most individuals may
have a positive attitude toward accommodation
and implementing special measures because
family-friendly policies affect the welfare of
families and that of the next generation of
citizens and employees. Many individuals may
view family needs as legitimate reasons to use
need-base allocation in the workplace. Third,
childless employees may see accommodation as
benefiting them because without it co-workers
with children would be absent more, hence
potentially increasing childless employees
workload. Rothausen at al. argued that either
type of reaction, positive or negative, to accom-
modation is likely to occur. Consequently,
finding strong and unequivocal effects of accom-
modation on applicant and employee reactions
is a challenge. However, Colella (2001) argued
that as the number of accommodations increase,
so does the potential for negative reactions by co-
workers. While organizations cannot simply bow
to the concerns of co-workers and eliminate
accommodations, they should be concerned that
perceptions of unfairness and favoritism may
become a serious problem. It would thus appear
that, given these two divergent views, and con-
flicting findings in the empirical literature, future
research on the positive and negative effects of
accommodation is warranted.
Potential limitations
A potential limitation of the two studies is that
the participants were not directly involved in the
scenario. The participants were mere observers
of an actual incident rather than recipients of
11
organizational policies. How we react to material
we hear or read is relevant in the present context,
since this is the kind of information we often
have regarding breastfeeding accommodation.
Little attention in the organizational behavior and
human resource management literature has been
given to the concerns of injustice from the per-
spective of third-party observers. Third-party
observers (e.g., co-workers, clients, and poten-
tial employees) include people who are not
directly affected by an injustice, but who make
fairness judgments nonetheless. A number of
authors (e.g., Lind et al., 1998; Walster et al.,
1978) have proposed that an observers response
to unfairness will be parallel to that of the recip-
ient, only less intense. A case can thus be made
that the issues presented in the scenarios were
relevant to the participants and have practical
implications for organizations.
A second potential limitation is that the par-
ticipants were responding to a hypothetical
situation; the policies advocated in the scenarios
did not personally affect them. Respondents per-
ceptions, therefore, are somewhat speculative and
hypothetical and may not align with true atti-
tudes and perceptions. The findings obtained in
the studies suggest that investigating perceptions
and intentions of employees in the few organi-
zations that have implemented breastfeeding
accommodation policies would be an interesting
avenue for future research to bolster the validity
of the results obtained. This research should also
tease apart the relative importance of factors such
as having children and gender in explaining
variance in reactions to accommodation.
Finally, a single accommodation practice was
isolated rather the focusing on a host of family-
responsive family-friendly policies. This is both
a strength and weakness of the design. It is a
strength because it allows us to focus on a unique
accommodation that has not attracted prior
research attention. It is a limitation, however,
because in most situations organizations are
expected to adopt a number of family-friendly
policies rather than one or two isolated policies.
Conclusion
The paper addressed an important topic for
research, one that is surprisingly absent from the
12 Gerard H. Seijts
literature. The issue of breastfeeding accommo-
dation has important societal implications. The
topic is of particular importance to many women
and the babies who may not be breastfed because
of rigid or uncomfortable organizational envi-
ronments. The results of the two studies pre-
sented show that pre-entry employees and
individuals engaged in long-term employment
viewed organizations that accommodated breast-
feeding to be more fair and attractive than orga-
nizations that did not accommodate. However,
the results also indicated that individuals who do
not directly benefit from breastfeeding accom-
modation could be against a nursing mother
getting particular benefits. Self-interest motives
can affect evaluations of fairness and organiza-
tional attractiveness.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Adrienne Colella, Bruno
Dyck, Warren Eaton, and Reg Litz for their
helpful comments on an earlier draft of the paper.
The author thanks Kent Walker for his help with
the research.
References
Albinger, H. A. and S. J. Freeman: 2000, Corporate
Social Performance and Attractiveness as an
Employer to Different Job Seeking Populations,
Journal of Business Ethics 28, 243253.
American Academy of Pediatrics: 1997, Breastfeeding
and the Use of Human Milk, Paediatrics 100,
10351039.
Arvey, R. D. and P. R. Sackett: 1993, Fairness
in Selection: Current Developments and
Perspectives, in N. Schmitt and W. C. Borman
(eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA), pp. 171202.
Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny: 1986, The
Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and
Statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 51, 11731182.
Bazerman, M.: 1998, Judgment in Managerial Decision
Making (John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY).
Brockner, J., S. Grover, T. Reed, R. DeWitt and M.
OMalley: 1987, Survivors Reactions to Layoffs:
We Get By with a Little Help for Our Friends,
Administrative Sciences Quarterly 32, 526541.
Campbell, C.: 1996, Breastfeeding and Health in the
Western World, British Journal of General Practice
46, 613617.
Cleveland, N. J., J. L. Barnes-Farrell and J. M. Ratz:
1997, Accommodation in the Workplace, Human
Resource Management Review 7, 77107.
Cohen, R., M. B. Mrtek and R. G. Mrtek: 1995,
Comparison of Maternal Absenteeism and Infant
Illness Rates Among Breastfeeding and Formula-
Feeding Women in Two Corporations, American
Journal of Health Promotion 10, 148153.
Colella, A.: 2001, Co-worker Distributive Fairness
Judgments of the Workplace Accommodation
of Employees with Disabilities, Academy of
Management Review 26, 100116.
Colella, A., R. L. Paetzold and M. A. Belliveau: 2001,
Co-Workers Procedural Justice Judgments of the
Workplace Accommodation of Employees with
Disabilities, Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Meeting, August, Washington DC.
Cunningham, A. S., D. B. Jelliffe and E. F. P. Jelliffe:
1991, Breastfeeding and Health in the 1980s: A
Global Epidemiologic Review, Journal of Pediatrics
118, 18.
Faught, L.: 1994, Lactation Programs Benefit
the Family and the Corporation, Journal of
Compensation and Benefits 10, 4447.
Folger, R. and R. Cropanzano: 1998, Organizational
Justice and Human Resource Management (Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).
Gemignani, J.: 1997, Easing New Moms Return to
Work, Business and Health 15, 45.
Gilliland, S. W.: 1994, Effects of Procedural and
Distributive Justice on Reactions to a Selection
System, Journal of Applied Psychology 79, 691701.
Greenberg, J.: 1994, Using Socially Fair Treatment
to Promote Acceptance of a Work Site Smoking
Ban, Journal of Applied Psychology 79, 288297.
Grover, S. L.: 1991, Predicting the Perceived Fairness
of Parental Leave Policies, Journal of Applied
Psychology 76, 247255.
Grover, S. L. and K. J. Crooker: 1995, Who
Appreciates Family-Responsive Human Resource
Policies: The Impact of Family-Friendly Policies
on the Organizational Attachment of Parents and
Non-Parents, Personnel Psychology 48, 271288.
Klerman, J. A. and A. Leibowitz: 1990, The Work
Employment Distinction Among New Mothers,
Journal of Human Resources 29, 277303.
Konovsky, M.: 2000, Understanding Procedural
 Breastfeeding Accommodation
Justice and its Impact on Business Organizations,
Journal of Management 26, 489512.
Kurinij, N., P. H. Shiono, S. F. Ezrine and G. C.
Rhoads: 1989, Does Maternal Employment Affect
Breastfeeding?, American Journal of Public Health 79,
12471250.
Lind, E. A., L. Kray and L. Thompson: 1998,
The Social Construction of Injustice: Fairness
Judgments in Response to Own and Others
Unfair Treatment by Authorities, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 75, 122.
Poirer v. British Columbia Ministry of Municipal
Affairs, Recreation and Housing: 1997, Canadian
Human Rights Reporter 29, 128.
Ployhart, R. E. and A. M. Ryan: 1997, Toward
an Explanation of Applicant Reactions: An
Examination of Organizational Justice and
Attribution Frameworks, Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes 72, 308335.
Ployhart, R. E. and A. M. Ryan: 1998, Applicants
Reactions to the Fairness of Selection Procedures:
The Effects of Positive Rule Violations and Time
Measurement, Journal of Applied Psychology 83,
316.
Roe, B., L. A. Whittington, S. B. Fein and M. F.
Teisl: 1999, Is There Competition Between
Breastfeeding and Maternal Employment?,
Demography 36, 157171.
Rothausen, T. J., J. A. Gonzalez, N. E. Clarke and
L. L. ODell: 1998, Family-Friendly Backlash:
Fact or Fiction? The Case of Organizations On-
Site Child Care Centers, Personnel Psychology 51,
685706.
13
Rynes, S. L.: 1991 Recruitment, Job Choice, and
Post-Hire Consequences: A Call for New Research
Directions, in M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough
(eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology 1, 399444.
Rynes, S. L.: 1993, When Recruitment Fails
to Attract: Individual Expectations Meet
Organizational Realities in Recruitment, in H.
Schuler and J. L. Farr (eds.), Personnel Selection and
Assessment: Individual and Organizational Perspectives
(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), pp.
2740.
Turban, D. B. and D. W. Greening: 1996,
Corporate Social Performance and Organizational
Attractiveness to Prospective Employees, Academy
of Management Journal 40, 658672.
Visness, C. M. and K. I. Kennedy: 1997, Maternal
Employment and Breastfeeding: Findings From
the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health
Survey, American Journal of Public Health 87,
945950.
Walster, E., G. N. Walster and E. Berscheid: 1978,
Equity: Theory and Research (Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA).
University of Western Ontario,
Richard Ivey School of Business,
1151 Richmond Street North,
London, Ontario,
Canada N6A 3K7
E-mail: gseijts@ivey.uwo.ca