Organizational work–life initiatives: context matters

Abstract

Why are organizational work-life initiatives endorsed in some countries such as the US or the UK, while they generate little interest in France and other non Anglo-Saxon environments? In a qualitative theory-building approach, this article assesses the gap in workplace practices adoption among the US, the UK and France and analyzes in-depth interviews with 44 HR officers, employee representatives, unions and work-life service providers in France. Five main factors explain the adoption of organizational work-life initiatives in France and potentially other countries: (1) Employers versus State's legitimacy in the nonwork sphere of life (2) industrial relations and unions' stance towards work-life practices (3) the complexity of the legal framework (4) the awareness of work-life issues within HR departments and (5) the framing of work-life as a business or a social issue. With reference to prior research, a model is built to account for the influence of the national context on employees' expectations and employers' leeway at the macro level, and for strategic choices made by employers at the meso level.

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

“…They do not consider it their task and do not even see it as an option. This supports the claim of other studies that when the state provides extensive leave arrangements, the extension of these policies is not seen as the responsibility of organizations (Den Dulk et al, 2012;Ollier-Malaterre, 2009). Therefore we conclude that the legislative context determines whether top managers perceive leave arrangements and child care as part of the public sphere or business sphere and consequently as an option to supplement legislation or not.…”

“…However, a negative relationship between state policies and organizational work-life arrangements has also been observed (Den Dulk, 2001;Ollier-Malaterre, 2009). An argument given to explain this negative relationship between state policies and the provision of work-life arrangements by organizations is that if the state is already providing many work-life policies, there is less need for organizations to be involved in providing them (Den Dulk, 2001).…”

“…Scholars, however, acknowledge that it is ultimately top managers that decide upon the organizations' strategy regarding the adoption of work-life arrangements (Bardoel, 2003;Kossek et al, 1994;Milliken et al, 1998;Osterman, 1995). Their influence is illustrated by studies that used the reporting of HR managers and show that organizations with a top manager with a positive attitude towards work-life arrangements tend to provide more of these arrangements (Bardoel, 2003;Kossek et al, 1994;Ollier-Malaterre, 2009). Top managers are thus actors that can provide insight in the considerations underlying the decision whether to provide work-life arrangements, even though other actors are also relevant for the provision of work-life arrangements.…”

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

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