Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wang Walubwa Family-Friendly Programs, Organizational Commitment and Work Withdrawal
Wang Walubwa Family-Friendly Programs, Organizational Commitment and Work Withdrawal
Using data from China, Kenya, and Thailand, we investigated the moder-
ating effect of transformational leadership in the relationships between
family-friendly programs (childcare and work flexibility benefits), or-
ganizational commitment, and work withdrawal. Results supported the
moderating effect of transformational leadership in the relationships be-
tween work flexibility benefits and both organizational commitment and
work withdrawal, and between childcare benefits and work withdrawal.
Theoretical contributions as well as practical implications are discussed.
We thank Leanne Atwater and Daniel Ganster for their insightful comments on the initial
version of the paper. We are also grateful to three anonymous reviewers and Editor Ann
Marie Ryan for their insightful feedback and guidance. The authors contributed equally to
this paper.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Peng Wang, Richard
T. Farmer School of Business, Miami University, 501 East High Street, Oxford, OH 45056;
wangp@muohio.edu.
COPYRIGHT
C 2007 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.
397
398 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
employees balance work and family roles, organizations that offer these
programs are likely to gain competitive advantage by reducing workers’
compensation, medical claims, and costs associated with withdrawal be-
haviors while maintaining a high level of job performance and productivity
(Cascio, 1991; Halpern, 2005; Judge & Colquitt, 2004).
Whereas many researchers have examined the relationships between
family-friendly programs and several important work-related attitudes and
behaviors such as organizational commitment and absenteeism (Baltes
et al., 1999; Berg, Kalleberg, & Appelbaum, 2003; Grover & Crooker,
1995; Halpern, 2005), only equivocal conclusions can be drawn from
existing research. For example, some empirical studies have found that
employees with family-friendly programs reported higher levels of com-
mitment to their organizations and reduced withdrawal behaviors (e.g.,
Chiu & Ng, 1999; Halpern, 2005; Goff, Mount, & Jamison, 1990), even
among those who do not stand to benefit from such programs (Grover
& Crooker, 1995). Other empirical studies have not found these positive
effects. Christensen and Staines (1990) reviewed flextime literature and
determined that there was no clear relationship with organizational com-
mitment. Preece and Filbeck (1999) found that family-friendly firms did
not outperform similar, non-family-friendly companies. Kossek and Ozeki
(1998) conducted a meta-analysis and concluded that organizational poli-
cies designed to help employees integrate work and family roles were only
marginally effective, at best.
Perhaps simply offering family-friendly programs does not necessar-
ily mean employees find the organization supportive of their work–life
needs and reciprocate with favorable work-related attitudes and behav-
iors (Thompson et al., 2004). Given the focus on main effects of family–
friendly programs (Allen, 2001), research on family-friendly programs
may be overlooking key moderator variables. Indeed, researchers have
suggested that it may not be family-friendly programs alone that allow
employees to work effectively, but a coherent family-supportive work-
place environment (Allen, 2001; Batt & Valcour, 2003; Berg, Kalleberg,
& Appelbaum, 2003; Frye & Breaugh, 2004). This is because a sup-
portive work–family environment is likely to increase the likelihood that
employees will feel comfortable using family-friendly benefits without
worrying about negative career consequences (Thompson, Beauvais, &
Lyness, 1999; Thompson & Prottas, 2005). However, our knowledge of
what creates and maintains a family-supportive workplace is quite limited
(Thompson, Andreassi, & Prottas, 2005). Scholars have suggested that
future research should begin focusing on what contributes to a supportive
culture and what constrains an organization’s ability to create a family
friendly environment for its employees (Thompson & Prottas, 2005).
WANG AND WALUMBWA 399
Family-Friendly Programs
Transformational Leadership
Childcare +
Benefits + + +
+
Organizational
Commitment
-
Work
+ Withdrawal
Flexibility
-
Benefits
employees now have access to some form of flextime, compared with 29%
of employees 10 years ago (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, & Prottas, 2003).
In this study, we focus on childcare and work flexibility benefits, includ-
ing on-site childcare facility (i.e., employer sponsored childcare center),
employer childcare referral services (i.e., the extent to which a company
provide a list of childcare providers for their employees), subsidized child-
care costs (i.e., the extent to which a company share part of childcare costs
of their employees), flexible work schedules (i.e., the extent to which em-
ployees are allowed flexibility in terms of when to start and leave work),
flexible work arrangement (i.e., a work arrangement in which employees
are allowed to work from home for a portion of their normal work if they
chose to do so), and personal and family leave (i.e., the extent to which
employees are allowed to take some days off without pay for personal or
family reasons).
Social exchange theory also suggests that the less the organization
provides family-friendly programs to their employees, the more apt are
employees to conclude that the organization is not treating them well.
As a result, individuals may reciprocate by exhibiting counter productive
job behaviors. Conversely, family-friendly programs provide employees
more control to manage their work and family obligations without having
to choose between the two (Halpern, 2005). For example, workers can take
a child to a doctor without missing time from work because employees
can adjust their time of attendance. Indeed, there is anecdotal empirical
evidence that links family-responsive programs to work withdrawal. For
example, Anderson et al. (2002) analyzed data from the 1997 National
404 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) and reported that family inter-
fering with work was related to absenteeism. Other research (e.g., Halpern,
2005) has also found that in companies that offer supportive work–family
programs, employees take less sick time, rarely come to work late, leave
early, or miss deadlines. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following hy-
potheses:
Grover and Cooker (1995, p. 285) noted, “even the most family-
friendly workplace policies are at best useless, or worse, counter produc-
tive, if the work environment does not support them.” Specifically, they
argued that when supervisors do not support employees taking parental
leave or using flextime, such policies will certainly fail to promote orga-
nizational attachment. Judge and Colquitt (2004) echoing this sentiment
wrote: “even the best parental leave procedure cannot overcome supervi-
sors who forbid their employees from using it” (p. 402). Although leader-
ship can potentially play an important role (e.g., Frye & Breaugh, 2004;
Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson et al. 1999), prior researchers have
not attempted to theoretically and empirically integrate work–family bene-
fit programs and leadership to examine how they might predict employees’
work attitudes and behaviors.
Because approval of the usage of family-friendly benefits is likely up to
the immediate supervisor’s discretion (Swanberg, 2004), we expect trans-
formational leader behavior to amplify the effects of work–family benefits
on organizational commitment and work withdrawal in several ways. First,
because transformational leaders pay special attention to their followers’
individual needs (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998), it would follow that subordi-
nates of such leaders would personify organizations as caring about their
individual well-being and valuing their individual contributions. Second,
transformational leaders are said to be open to new and creative ideas
about how to get the work done (Bass, 1998). Such leaders give followers
discretion to act and show appreciation and support so that followers are
likely to freely explore the new ways to approach problems and challenges
(Bass, 1998). Employees who have discretion over the way in which they
perform their job should be better able to use family-friendly benefits to
WANG AND WALUMBWA 405
integrate their work and family lives (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Thomp-
son & Prottas, 2005). For example, research suggest that workers who have
considerable control over their work and whose workplaces provide op-
portunities such as flextime and assistance with child care would perceive
their company as more friendly in helping them to balance their work and
family demands (Berg et al., 2003). Third, transformational leaders are
likely to encourage progressive and innovative ideas as would be family-
friendly programs (Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000; Pfeffer, 1994), which can
effectively align employees and employers’ needs. Such leaders may also
foster the formation of high quality relationships and a sense of a common
fate with individual subordinates (Deluga, 1992). By displaying those be-
haviors, the message being sent to employees is that it is possible to be a
productive worker, involved, and yet a caring family member at the same
time.
Therefore, subordinates of transformational leaders would feel more
comfortable using family-friendly benefits because their supervisor is sup-
portive of their personal needs as well as the idea of innovative ways to
perform duties and tasks. The more employees feel comfortable to use the
benefit packages to help themselves and members of their families per-
sonally and professionally, the more they would want to give something
back to it (Lambert, 2000). Indeed, Lambert (1995) examined the use and
appreciation employees have for a range of family-friendly programs at
a family-owned engine-gasket manufacturing firm and found a positive
association between benefit use and appreciation. In another field study of
271 employees, Rothausen, Gonzalez, Clarke, and O’Dell (1998) found
current, past use, and anticipated future use of the on-site child care center
related to more positive attitudes toward the child care center. Accordingly,
we propose and test the following hypotheses:
Method
1
For details, see http://www.icftu-apro.org/aplabour
2
For details, see http://www.wiego.org/papers
WANG AND WALUMBWA 407
Data for this study came from 45 (China = 14; Kenya = 16; and Thai-
land = 15) different local bank branches, with the response rates ranging
from 67% to 76% in each country. The bank branches were located in
Beijing (China), Nairobi (Kenya), and Bangkok (Thailand). The banking
sector was deemed appropriate for this study because there is generally a
high proportion of employed woman compared to traditional sectors (i.e.,
agriculture). Besides, employees in this sector are relatively well educated,
which facilitated the use of questionnaires. A total of 475 employees par-
ticipated in this study (China = 186; Kenya = 110; and Thailand = 179),
with an average of 11 employees from each bank branch.
A senior HR manager in each bank was asked to assist in the initial
distribution of the questionnaires; however, the completed questionnaires
were collected on-site individually by one of the research members in
each country. All respondents were assured anonymity in a cover letter
addressed to all employees. Women comprised 47.30% of the total sam-
ple (China = 56.50%; Kenya = 31.80%; and Thailand = 45.80 %), and
parents with kids at home accounted for 59.60% of the total sample (China
= 68.80%; Kenya = 73.60%; and Thailand = 41.30%). The average age
was 32.50 years (SD = 6.32) in China, 31.40 years (SD = 5.8) in Kenya,
and 36.80 years (SD = 7.60) in Thailand. Over 72.60% of the employees
were married or living with a partner, with a mean tenure of 9.40 years
(SD = 6.90). Across the three countries, 95% of the respondents had
completed an equivalent of the U.S. community or university college
degree.
The questionnaire was administered in English in Kenya but translated
into Chinese and Thai for the Chinese and Thai participants following the
procedure recommended by Brislin (1980). A bilingual speaker performed
408 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
the initial translation, after which the questionnaire was given to another
bilingual speaker who was asked to back-translate the same items into
English without having access to the original survey and comment on any
item that was seen as ambiguous. Finally, we gave the same questionnaire
to two expert judges in Chinese and Thai who examined the questionnaires
to ensure that items were interpretable in Chinese and Thai. This process
did not give rise to major changes to any of the items.
Measures
Measurement Issues
Because our data came from three countries, we assessed the extent to
which the constructs were invariant across countries (Bryn, 2001; Fitzger-
ald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; Walumbwa & Lawler,
2003), with AMOS maximum likelihood (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). To
do this, two models were specified: a restricted model and unrestricted
WANG AND WALUMBWA 411
model. In the unrestricted model, each indicator was allowed to load only
on its factor, but the factor loadings and covariances were allowed to vary
across countries. In the restricted model, factor loadings were restricted
to be invariant across the three countries, but the covariances were free
to vary across the countries. The fit indices showed acceptable fit to the
data for restricted model (CFI = .91, RMSEA = .04). A comparison of
the restricted and unrestricted model did not show significant difference
(χ 2 /df = 1.44, p > .05), suggesting that the factor structures were
approximately equivalent across the three countries. On the basis of these
results, we concluded that it was appropriate to combine data from the
three countries.
Researchers (e.g., Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Kozlowski & Klein,
2000) have discussed the need to clearly delineate the level of theory and
the level of measurement in their research. In this research, family-friendly
programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal were ana-
lyzed as individual-level variables. However, we treated transformational
leadership as a group-level variable for several reasons. Shamir, Zakay,
Breinin, and Popper (1998) argued that although individual followers may
perceive transformational leadership behaviors differently and react to
them differently, “the behaviors themselves are assumed to be homoge-
nous with respect to an entire unit” (p. 392). Second, because individual
followers are nested within leaders or supervisors, and because there may
be multiple levels of leaders or supervisors in any given organization, we
believe a multilevel approach to investigating the effects of leadership may
be the most appropriate strategy because leadership represents a shared or
collective mental model (Bass, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Finally,
because evaluations of family-friendly programs, leadership, and outcome
variables came from the same individuals, using the same questionnaire,
relationships might be inflated due to common source/common method
bias. By treating leadership as a group-level variable, we reduced this risk.
According to Bono and Judge (2003), a benefit to this approach is that indi-
vidual differences in follower reactions to leaders or biases in reporting are
treated as error. Thus, on the basis of recent conceptualizations and a large
number of empirical studies (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Kark, Shamir,
& Chen, 2003; Shamir et al., 1998; Walumbwa, Lawler, Avolio, Wang,
& Shi, 2005), we examined transformational leadership as a group-level
variable.
To further justify aggregation of transformational leadership to higher
levels of analysis, we conducted intraclass correlation, ICC (1) and ICC
(2) (Bliese, 2000) and the average within-group interater reliabilities (r wg )
412 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
(James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). The ICC (1) was .60 and ICC (2) was .94.
The F-tests for the group effect were also significant (F[44, 430] = 17.18,
p < .001). The r wg average value was .88, meeting the recommended .70
cut-off value (James et al., 1993). As a result, we felt that our aggregation
statistics and theory provides sufficient justification for aggregation and
thus, treated transformational leadership as a group-level variable.
Although it is possible that family-friendly programs can also oc-
cur at the group-level, we decided to view family-friendly programs as
individual-level variables. Lambert and Waxman (2005) pointed out that
individuals may differ in whether a program is available to them person-
ally. For example, the access to some programs may be restricted within
certain a job category and seniority level, or may differ with negotiation.
We also found that the average r wg for childcare benefit was .53 and for
flexibility benefit was .64, both substantially lower than the recommended
cutoff values to justify statistical aggregation. Therefore, family-friendly
program availability is appropriately considered at the individual-level of
analysis.
However, it is worth noting that there was meaningful between-group
variance, (F[44, 430] = 3.48, p < .01) for childcare benefits and (F[44,
430] = 5.85, p < .01) for flexible benefits. Thus, consistent with Hofmann,
Morgeson, and Gerras (2003), we decided to investigate whether the trans-
formational leadership moderation of the family-friendly programs, orga-
nizational commitment and work withdrawal relationships (i.e., Hypothe-
ses 3 and 4), constituted cross-level or between-group interactions.
To test our hypotheses, we utilized hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)
with intercepts as outcomes (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), in conjunction
with the mediation and moderation standards described by Kenny and col-
leagues (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). In
all the analyses, we used group-mean centering for Level 1 predictors be-
cause it allows researchers to separate out the cross-level interaction from
a between group-interaction (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998) and grand-mean
centering for Level 2 predictors because it helps reduce the covariance
between intercepts and slopes, thereby reducing potential problems asso-
ciated with multicollinearity (Hofmann, 1997).
Results
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Zero-order Correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5
∗∗ ∗∗
1. Childcare benefits .50 .79 .24 .01 .14 .05
2. Flexibility benefits 1.01 .88 .15∗∗ .09∗ .28∗∗
3. Transformational leadership 2.98 .70 .31∗∗ −.08
4. Organizational commitment 3.46 .74 −.16∗∗
5. Work withdrawal 2.06 .93
∗
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01.
TABLE 2
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Models and Results for Hypotheses 1–2
Model r 10 r 20 σ2 τ 11 τ 22
Hypothesis 1
L1: CMIT = β 0 + β 1j (CHID) + β 2j (FLEX) .15∗∗ .02 .37 .00 .02∗
+ β ij (CONTROLS)a + r ij
L2: β 0j = r 00 + U 0j
L2: β 1j = r 10 + U 1j
L2: β 2j = r 20 + U 2j
Hypothesis 2
L1: WITD = β 0 + β 1j (CHID) + β 2j (FLEX) .01 .09 .58 .03∗ .06†
+ β ij (CONTROLS)a + r ij
L2: β 0j = r 00 + U 0j
L2: β 1j = r 10 + U 1j
L2: β 2j = r 20 + U 2j
Note. L1 = Level 1; L2 = Level 2; CMIT = commitment; CHID = childcare benefit;
FLEX = flexibility benefit; WITD = work withdrawal; controls include organizational
tenure, perceived importance of childcare benefits, perceived importance of flexibility
benefits, country dummy, marital status, parental status, and gender; r 10 = intercept of
Level 2 regression predicting β 1j (pooled Level 1 slopes); r 20 = intercept of Level 2
regression predicting β 2j (pooled Level 1 slopes); r 30 = intercept of Level 2 regression
predicting β 3j (pooled Level 1 slopes); σ 2 = variance in Level 1 residual (i.e., variance
in r ij ); τ 11 = variance in Level 2 residual for models predicting β 1j (i.e., variance in U 1 );
τ 22 = variance in Level 2 residual for models predicting β 2j (i.e., variance in U 2 ); τ 33 =
variance in Level 2 residual for models predicting β 3j (i.e., variance in U 3 ).
†
p < .10; ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01. r 10, r 20, r 30 are unstandardized regression coefficients.
Parameter estimates
Model r 01 r 02 r 03 r 04 r 05 r 10 r 20 r 11 r 22 σ2 τ 11 τ 22
Preliminary model
L1: CMIT = β 0 + β 1j (CHID) + β 2j (FLEX) .03 −.70∗∗ .40∗∗ .11∗∗ .03 .30 .01 .04∗∗
+ β ij (CONTROLS)a + r ij
L2: β 0j = r 00 + r 01 (Mean CHID)
+ r 02 (Mean FLEX) + r 03 (TFL) + U 0j
L2: β 1j = r 10 + U 1j
L2: β 2j = r 20 + U 2j
Hypothesis 3
L1: CMIT = β 0 + β 1j (CHID) + β 2j (FLEX) .03 −.43∗ .50∗∗ .00 −.06 .10∗∗ .01 −.01 .18∗∗ .30 .01 .03∗
+ β ij (CONTROLS)a + r ij
L2: β 0j = r 00 + r 01 (Mean CHID) + r 02 (Mean
FLEX) + r 03 (TFL) + r 04 (Mean CHID ×
TFL) + r 05 (Mean FLEX × TFL) +U 0j
WANG AND WALUMBWA
L2: β 1j = r 10 + r 11 (TFL) + U 1j
L2: β 2j = r 20 + r 22 (TFL) + U 2j
Note. L1= Level 1; L2 = Level 2; CMIT = commitment; CHID = childcare benefit; FLEX = flexibility benefit; TFL= transformational leadership;
controls include organizational tenure, perceived importance of childcare benefits, perceived importance of flexibility benefits, and country, marital
status, parental status, and gender; r 01 –r 05 = slopes of Level 2 regression predicting β 0j; r 10 = intercept of Level 2 regression predicting β 1j ; r 20 =
intercept of Level 2 regression predicting β 2j ; r 11 = slope of Level 2 regression predicting β 1j ; r 22 = slope of Level 2 regression predicting β 2j ; σ 2 =
variance in Level 1 residual (i.e., variance in r ij ); τ 11 = variance in Level 2 residual for models predicting β 1j (i.e., variance in U 1 ); τ 22 = variance in
Level 2 residual for models predicting β 2j (i.e., variance in U 2 ).
∗
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01. r 00 – r 22 are unstandardized regression coefficients.
415
416 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Parameter estimates
Model r 01 r 02 r 03 r 04 r 05 r 10 r 20 r 11 r 22
2 τ 11 τ 22
Preliminary model
L1: WITD = β 0 + β 1j (CHID) + β 2j (FLEX) −.09 .35∗ −.12∗ .02 .10∗ .56 .02† .05†
+ β ij (CONTROLS)a + r ij
L2: β 0j = r 00 + r 01 (Mean CHID) + r 02 (Mean
FLEX) + r 03 (TFL) + U 0j
L2: β 1j = r 10 + U 1j
L2: β 2j = r 20 + U 2j
Hypothesis 4
L1: WITD = β 0 + β 1j (CHID) + β 2j (FLEX) .34 .18 −.11 −.15 .08 .05 .11∗ −.16∗∗ −.15∗ .46 .01 .03
+ β ij (CONTROLS)a + r ij
L2: β 0j = r 00 + r 01 (Mean CHID) + r 02 (Mean
FLEX)+ r 03 (TFL) + r 04 (Mean CHID ×
TFL) + r 05 (Mean FLEX × TFL) + U 0j
WANG AND WALUMBWA
L2: β 1j = r 10 + r 11 (TFL) + U 1j
L2: β 2j = r 20 + r 22 (TFL) + U 2j
Note. L1 = Level 1; L2 = Level 2; CMIT = commitment; CHID = childcare benefit; FLEX = flexibility benefit; TFL = transformational leadership;
controls include organizational commitment, organizational tenure, perceived importance of childcare benefits, perceived importance of flexibility
benefits, country dummy, marital status, parental status, and gender; r 01 –r 05 = slopes of Level 2 regression predicting β 0j; r 10 = intercept of Level 2
regression predicting β 1j ; r 20 = intercept of Level 2 regression predicting β 2j ; r 11 = slope of Level 2 regression predicting β 1j ; r 22 = slope of Level 2
regression predicting β 2j ; σ 2 = variance in Level 1 residual (i.e., variance in r ij ); τ 11 = variance in Level 2 residual for models predicting β 1j (i.e.,
variance in U 1 ); τ 22 = variance in Level 2 residual for models predicting β 2j (i.e., variance in U 2 ).
†
p < .10; ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01. r 00 –r 22 are unstandardized regression coefficients.
417
418 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
3.7
3.6
Organizational Commitmen
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
2.9
2.8
Few Flexibility Benefits Many Flexibility Benefits
2.5
2
Work Withdrawa
1.5
0.5
2
Work Withdrawa
1.5
0.5
This study sought to shed light on the ways in which leadership affects
followers’ responses to family-friendly programs. It also builds on pre-
vious research that found negative associations between family-friendly
programs and work withdrawal. Specifically, we developed and tested
hypotheses about how transformational leadership shapes followers’ re-
actions to family-friendly programs and how these responses relate to fol-
lowers’ attitudes and behaviors. Although researchers have often linked
work–family issues with leadership (e.g., Batt & Valcour, 2003; Frye &
Breaugh, 2004; Thomas & Ganster, 1995), only recently have researchers
recognized that the nature and structure of work environments may provide
a key influence on the effectiveness of family-friendly programs (Berg et
al., 2003). Thus, by investigating the interactive effects of family-friendly
programs and transformational leadership, we took a step toward address-
ing the question of why inconsistencies exist between family-friendly
programs and work-related outcomes (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Preece &
Filbeck, 1999).
To summarize, we found that childcare benefits were positively related
to organizational commitment, consistent with previous findings (e.g.,
Chiu & Ng, 1999). However, contrary to expectation, we did not find a
significant relationship between childcare benefits and work withdrawal,
or between work flexibility benefits and both organizational commitment
and work withdrawal. We do not know why this was the case but speculate
that the context of this study may have influenced our results. Perhaps,
people in these developing and collectivistic countries hold different views
of inflexible and long work time. Yang et al. (2000) suggested that people
in collectivistic societies may view work and family as interdependent,
for example, work as a means of supporting the family. Spector et al.
(2004) also found that the work hours had less negative impact on work-
related attitudes in China and Latin America compared to Anglo countries
(Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the U.S.). Future studies
examining the effect of family-friendly programs in developing countries
should be conducted. For example, it would be interesting to determine
whether the effect of family-friendly programs depends on the presence
or absence of extended family support (such as siblings to take care of
children or the elderly).
Second, we found that transformational leadership moderated the rela-
tionships between family-friendly programs and both organizational com-
mitment and work withdrawal (Hypotheses 3b, 4a, and 4b). This link had
not been made in previous work on work–family research. The results
show that family-friendly work programs produce higher levels of or-
ganizational commitment and reduced level of work withdrawal when
WANG AND WALUMBWA 421
REFERENCES
Aiken LS, West SG. (1991). Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen TD. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational per-
ceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Anderson SE, Coffey BS, Byerly R. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and infor-
mal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes.
Journal of Management, 28, 787–810.
Arbuckle JL, Wothke W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.
Avolio BJ. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Walumbwa FO, Zhu W. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire:
Manual and sampler test. 3rd ed. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
WANG AND WALUMBWA 423
Baltes BB, Briggs TE, Huff JW, Wright JA, Neuman GA. (1999). Flexible and compressed
workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496–513.
Barling J, Weber T, Kelloway EK. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training and
attitudinal and fiscal outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 827–832.
Baron RM, Kenny DA. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psy-
chological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bass BM. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass BM, Avolio BJ. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form,
rater, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Redwood City, CA: Mind
Garden.
Bass BM, Avolio BJ, Jung DI, Berson Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
207–218.
Batt R, Valcour PM. (2003). Human resources practices as predictors of work-family out-
comes and employee turnover. Industrial Relations, 42, 189–220.
Berg P, Kalleberg AL, Appelbaum E. (2003). Balancing work and family: The role of
high-commitment environments. Industrial Relations, 42, 168–188.
Blau PM. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Academic Press.
Bliese PD. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implica-
tions for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (Eds.), Multi-
level theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and
new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bond JT, Thompson C, Galinsky E, Prottas D. (2003). Highlights of the 2002 National
Study of the Changing Workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Bono JE, Judge TA. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the moti-
vational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46,
554–571.
Brislin RW. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Trian-
dis HC, Berry JW (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (vol. 2, pp. 389–
444). Boston, Allyn and Bacon.
Buckingham M, Coffman C. (1999). First, break all of the rules. What the worlds greatest
managers do differently. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Burke ME. (June, 2004). 2004 Benefits Survey Report. Available at www.shrm.org only to
members of the Society of Human Resource Management.
Burley KA. (1994). Gender differences and similarities in coping responses to anticipated
work-family conflict. Psychological Reports, 74, 115–123.
Byrne BM. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cascio WF. (1991). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organi-
zations. Boston: Kent.
Chiu WCK, Ng CW. (1999). Women-friendly HRM and organizational commitment: A
study among women and men of organizations in Hong Kong. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 72, 485–502.
Christensen KE, Staines GL. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work/family conflict.
Journal of Family issues, 4, 455–477.
Deluga RJ. (1992). The relationship of leader-member exchange with laissez-faire, trans-
actional, and transformational leadership. In Clark KE, Clark MB, Campbell DR
424 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
(Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 237–247). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, Sowa D. (1986). The perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Families and Work Institute. (1998). The 1997 National study of the changing workforce,
executive summary. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Fitzgerald LF, Drasgow F, Hulin CL, Gelfand MJ, Magley VJ. (1997). Antecedents and
consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–89.
Frone MR. (2003). Work-family balance. In Quick JC, Tetrick LE (Eds.), Handbook of
occupational health psychology (pp.143–162). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Frone MR, Yardley JK. (1996). Workplace family-supportive programs: Predictors of em-
ployed parents’ importance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 69, 351–366.
Frone MR, Yardley JK, Markel KS. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of
the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145–167.
Frye NK, Breaugh JA. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family
conflict, family-work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of conceptual model. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 19, 197–220.
Ginsberg S. (1998, May 3). Employee-friendly policies boost morale, productivity, survey
finds. Los Angeles Times, 5.
Goff SJ, Mount MK, Jamison RL. (1990). Employer supported child care, work/family
conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 43, 793–
809.
Gouldner AW. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Soci-
ological Review, 25, 161–178.
Grover SL, Crooker KJ. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies
on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. PERSONNEL PSYCHOL-
OGY, 48, 271–288.
Grzywacz JG, Marks NF. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An eco-
logical perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work
and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126.
Halpern DF. (2005). How time-flexible work policies can reduce stress, improve health,
and save money. Stress and Health, 21, 157–168.
Hanish KA, Hulin CL. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational withdrawal: An examina-
tion of retirement and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 37, 60–78.
Hofmann DA. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models.
Journal of Management, 23, 723–744.
Hofmann DA, Gavin MB. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Impli-
cations for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641.
Hofmann DA, Morgeson FP, Gerras SJ. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship
between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate
as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170–178.
Hofstede G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw
Hill.
James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G. (1993). r wg : An assessment of within-group interrater
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309.
Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. (1993). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific
Software.
WANG AND WALUMBWA 425
Judge TA, Colquitt JA. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: The mediating role of
work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 395–404.
Judge TA, Piccolo RF. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–
768.
Kark R, Shamir B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational
and collective selves and further effects on followers. In BJ Avolio, FJ Yammarino
(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2, pp.
67–91). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Kark R, Shamir B, Chen G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empow-
erment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255.
Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Bolger N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In Gilbert
DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp.
233–265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection,
and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–204.
Kossek E, Colquitt JA, Noe R. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance:
The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work-family
climates. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 29–44.
Kossek EE, Ozeki C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction
relationships: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139–149.
Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in orga-
nizations: Contextual, temporal, and emerging processes. In Klein KJ, Kozlowski
SWJ (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kristensen TS. (1991). Sickness absence and work strain among Danish slaughterhouse
workers: An analysis of absence from work regarded as coping behavior. Social
Science & Medicine, 32, 15–27.
Lambert S. (1995). An investigation of workers’ use and appreciation of supportive work-
place policies. Academy of Management Proceedings, 136–140.
Lambert SJ. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational
citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801–815.
Lambert SJ, Waxman E. (2005). Organizational stratification: Distributing opportunities for
balancing work and life. In Kossek EE, Lambert SJ (Eds.), Work and life integration:
Organizational, cultural and individual perspectives (pp. 103–126). Mahwah, NJ:
Erbaum.
Lowe KB, Kroeck KG, Sivasubramaniam N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transfor-
mational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytical review of the literature.
Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385–425.
Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO, Li W. (2005). The psychological capital of chinese
workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organiza-
tion Review, 1, 249–271.
Maslach C. (1993). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In Professional burnout:
Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 19–32). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor
& Francis.
Meyer JP, Allen NJ. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and appli-
cation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Meyer JP, Becker TE, Vandenberghe C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation:
A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
991–1007.
426 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Meyer JP, Herscovitch L. (2001). Commitment in the work place: Toward a general model.
Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW. (1979). The measurement of organizational commit-
ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Perry-Smith JE, Blum TC. (2000). Work family human resource bundles and perceived
organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1107–1117.
Pfeffer J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the
workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Piccolo RF, Colquitt JA. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The medi-
ating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340.
Preece DC, Filbeck G. (1999). Family friendly firms: Does it pay to care? Financial Service
Review, 8, 47–60.
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robert C, Probst TM, Martocchio JJ, Drasgow F, Lawler JJ. (2000). Empowerment and
continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting
fit on the basis of dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 643–658.
Rothausen TJ, Gonzalez JA, Clarke NE, O’Dell LL. (1998). Family-friendly backlash-
fact or fiction? The case of organizations’ on-site child care centers. PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY, 51, 685–707.
Shamir B, Zakay E, Breinin E, Popper M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior
in military units: Subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics and superiors’ appraisals
of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409.
Shin SJ, Zhou J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conversation, and creativity: Evidence
from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.
Spector PE, Cooper CL, Poelmans S, Allen TD, O’Driscoll M, Sánchez JL, et al. (2004). A
cross-national comparative study of work family stressors, working hours, and well-
being: China and Latin America versus the Anglo world. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY,
57, 119–142.
Swanberg JE. (2004). Illuminating gendered organization assumptions: An important step in
creating a family-friendly organization: A case study. Community, Work, & Family,
7, 3–28.
Thomas LT, Ganster DC. (1995). Impact of family supportive work variables on work-
family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
6–15.
Thompson CA, Andreassi J, Prottas DJ. (2005). Work–family culture: Key to reducing
workforce–workplace mismatch? In Bianchi SM, Casper LM, Berkowitz King R
(Eds.), Workforce–workplace mismatch? Work, family, health and well-being (pp.
117–132). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thompson CA, Beauvais LL, Lyness KS. (1999). When work-family benefits are not
enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational
attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415.
Thompson CA, Jahn EW, Kopelman RE, Prottas DJ. (2004). Perceived organizational family
support: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16,
545–565.
Thompson CA, Prottas DJ. (2005). Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 10, 100–118.
Walumbwa FO, Lawler J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Transformational lead-
ership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors in
WANG AND WALUMBWA 427