Wang Walubwa Family-Friendly Programs, Organizational Commitment and Work Withdrawal

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
2007, 60, 397–427
FAMILY-FRIENDLY PROGRAMS, ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT, AND WORK WITHDRAWAL: THE
MODERATING ROLE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP
PENG WANG
Richard T. Farmer School of Business
Miami University
FRED O. WALUMBWA
Arizona State University
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.
Family-friendly programs (i.e., childcare, time-flexible programs, etc.)

have been a focus of increased organizational research for the last 2
decades. There are several reasons why family-friendly programs are par-
ticularly important in contemporary organizations. On a macro side, the
provision of family-friendly programs allows an organization to maintain
a more committed workforce (Chiu & Ng, 1999; Grover & Crooker, 1995),
because these programs portray what an organization stands for in terms of
helping employees achieve a viable balance between work and family life
(Thompson, Jahn, Kopelman, & Prottas, 2004). On a micro side, family-
friendly programs are important because they can be used as mechanisms
to reduce employee absenteeism, stress, and turnover rates, while also en-
hancing employee commitment to the organization (Baltes, Briggs, Huff,
Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Batt & Valcour, 2003; Ginsberg, 1998; Halpern,
2005; Perry-Smith & Blum, 2000). Because family-friendly programs help
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
Because leadership has been suggested as one of the single biggest

factors contributing to employee perceptions in the workplace and work-
force engagement (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Buckingham &
Coffman, 1999), leadership may be among the more potent moderators
of the influence of family-friendly programs on follower work attitudes
and behaviors. For example, some researchers (e.g., Batt & Valcour, 2003;
Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Prottas, 2005) have suggested that
supportive supervisor behaviors might influence employees’ perceptions
of family-friendly programs. To date however, few, if any, studies have
investigated the interactive effects of family-friendly programs and lead-
ership in predicting follower work attitudes and behaviors, particularly in
developing economies.
The purpose of this study is to explore the role of leadership in the re-
lationships between family-friendly programs and work-related attitudes
and behaviors. We specifically examined the role of transformational lead-
ership in enhancing the effects of family-friendly programs (e.g., childcare
and work flexibility programs) on employee’s commitment to the orga-
nization and work withdrawal. We focus on transformational leadership
for several reasons. First, we view transformational leadership behaviors
as fitting within the broader conceptualization of supportive supervisor.
Transformational leaders attend to followers’ needs, provide support to
followers, act as mentors or coaches to followers, listen to followers’ con-
cerns, and foster a supportive climate for individual growth (Avolio, 1999;
Bass, 1998). Transformational leaders also provide constructive feedback
to their followers and encourage followers to think creatively about com-
plex problems (Shin & Zhou, 2003) as would be the case with work–family
conflict issues. Consequently, we suggest that transformational leaders are
more likely to allow for personal calls home after a child returns from
school, support an employee’s participation in a flexible work schedule
without any threat of punishment, and understand when an employee has to
occasionally leave early to pick up a child from daycare or take an elderly
parent to a doctor, all of which are used to define supportive supervisors
(Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Thompson & Prottas, 2005).
Second, transformational leaders may increase the level of coworker
support, which is suggested to influence an employee’s ability to integrate
work and family (Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Grzywacz & Marks,
2000; Thompson & Prottas, 2005). Supportive coworkers are more mo-
tivated to help their colleagues in personal and family stress and absorb
the extra work. Transformational leaders serve as role models by showing
their own willingness to sacrifice for the good and interests of followers
or the collective (Bass, 1998). They connect followers’ self-concept to the
mission of the group and develop followers’ collective motivation (Kark
& Shamir, 2002), fostering cooperation in the workplace (Avolio, 1999;

Bass, 1998).
This study contributes to this work–family literature in two main ways.
First, although much has been written about work–family programs in the
last two decades (Frye & Breaugh, 2004), the influence of leadership in ex-
plaining the effects of family-friendly programs on employee attitudes and
behaviors remains relatively underresearched. Because this study is based
on a theoretical framework that integrates literatures on work–family pro-
grams and transformational leadership, it provides a potentially important
theoretical contribution. Such integration should allow us to begin ad-
dressing some of the gaps in research linking work–family programs and
employee positive attitudes and behaviors.
Second, most family-friendly policy research has been conducted in
predominantly Western countries (e.g., Canada and the U.S.), with rela-
tively little research attention in developing countries that potentially share
a number of important characteristics, including culture (Spector et al.,
2004). This limits our ability to draw conclusions about the generalizabil-
ity of the effects of family-friendly programs in non-western countries.
Therefore, we extend our knowledge about how childcare and work flexi-
bility programs may interact with leadership to influence employees’ work
attitudes and behaviors in developing economies such as China, Kenya,
and Thailand. Figure 1 presents the overall model tested in this study.
Below, we first review the extant research and theory relevant to family-
friendly programs and individual-level outcomes such as organizational
commitment and work withdrawal. Second, we present hypotheses con-
cerning the moderating influence of transformational leadership in these
relationships. Finally, we present the results of our study testing these hy-
potheses in 45 bank branches representing 475 participants in China (n =
186), Kenya (n = 110), and Thailand (n = 179).
Theory and Hypotheses
Family-Friendly Programs
Although variation exists from organization to organization over what

exactly constitutes family-friendly program packages, recent surveys sug-
gest that flexible work scheduling is one of the most widely available pro-
grams, along with childcare assistance, flexible work arrangements (e.g.,
work from home), and elder care assistance (Families & Work Institute,
1998). Based on the 2004 benefits survey of the Society of Human Re-
source Management members, the most commonly offered family-friendly
benefits were dependent care flexible spending account (73%) and flex-
time hours (57%; Burke, 2004). Another research reported that 43% of
Transformational Leadership
Childcare +
Benefits + + +
+
Organizational
Commitment
-
Work
+ Withdrawal
Flexibility
-
Benefits
Figure 1: Hypothesized Relationships.
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).
Organizational Commitment and Work Withdrawal
Organizational commitment and work withdrawal represents some of

the heavily researched employee attitudes and behaviors in organizational
science and are theoretically relevant to family-friendly programs (Batt
& Valcour, 2003; Berg et al., 2003; Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Thompson
et al., 1999; Thompson & Prottas, 2005) and transformational leader-
ship (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Organizational commitment is an individual’s identification with and in-

volvement with a particular organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter,
1979). Because of the importance of organizational commitment, a va-
riety of researchers have developed ideas about its categorizations and
conceptualizations. For example, Meyer and colleagues (e.g., Meyer &
Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) categorized and conceptual-
ized organizational commitment into affective, continuance, and norma-
tive commitment. In this study, we focus on organizational commitment
that includes a strong belief in and acceptance of an organization’s goals
and desire to remain as an organizational member. This conceptualization
of organizational commitment relates highly to Meyer and Allen’s (1997)
concept of affective organizational commitment, which represents the idea
that one’s commitment to an organization is driven by emotional attach-
ment to and identification with that organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997;
Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004).
Work withdrawal refers to behaviors that dissatisfied individuals use
to minimize the time spent on their specific work tasks while maintaining
their current organizational and work-role memberships (Hanisch & Hulin,
1990). Such work behaviors may include a variety of counter productive
job behaviors such as absence from work without any tangible reason,
coming to work late, making excuses to get out of work, taking longer
breaks, or calling in sick when one is not actually sick. Excessive family
responsibilities may keep an individual from attending work, leaving home
on time, and concentrating on and devoting effort to work (Anderson,
Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Frone, 2003). The decision to withdraw from
work may also be determined by attitudinal and social factors (Halpern,
2005; Kristensen, 1991). For example, missing a day of work may be one
way that employees deal with the stress (Maslach, 1993). These behaviors,
if not adequately addressed, can be very costly to the organization in terms
of both human and financial resources (Cascio, 1991).
Social Exchange Theory
One theoretical basis for expecting associations (positive or negative)

between family-friendly programs and organizational commitment and
work withdrawal, respectively, is social exchange theory (Blau, 1964).
Social exchange theory posits that unspecified obligations based on trust
will lead to gestures of goodwill being reciprocated at some point in the
future. This theory is built on the principle of reciprocity, which is based on
two assumptions: “(a) people should help those who have helped them, and
(b) people should not injure those who have helped them” (e.g., Gouldner,
1960, p. 171).
In terms of family-friendly programs, exchange theory and the norm of

reciprocity suggest that when organizations provide family-friendly bene-
fits to their employees that are not mandated by the organizations or outside
forces (e.g., federal or state law requirements), reciprocity should come
into play. Lambert (2000) found that workers’ experiences with family-
friendly benefits fostered organizational citizenship behaviors, suggesting
that workers feel obligated to exert “extra” effort in return for “extra” ben-
efits. We suggest that if employees perceive that they are being cared for
through the provision of family-friendly programs (e.g., child care, flexible
work arrangements, etc.), the more apt employees are to conclude that the
organization is treating them well and thus will feel obligated to “pay back”
or reciprocate by becoming more committed to the organization. The ar-
gument of employee reciprocation with organizational commitment to the
organization is supported by Meyer and Allen (1997) in their summary of
research on the antecedents of affective organizational commitment. Allen
(2001) found that employees who perceive their companies as family sup-
portive had higher levels of organizational commitment. Other researchers
(e.g., Grover & Crooker, 1995; Halpern, 2005; Kossek, Colquitt, & Noe,
2001) have also found that employee commitment was enhanced when
organizations provided work-friendly programs to help employees fulfill
family and nonwork responsibilities. Thus, on the basis of past research
and theory, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1a: Employees’ perception of availability of childcare-

related family-friendly programs will be positively re-
lated to employee organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 1b: Employees’ perception of availability of work
flexibility-related family-friendly programs will be
positively related to employee organizational commit-
ment.
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
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:
Hypothesis 2a: Employees’ perception of availability of childcare-

related family-friendly programs will be negatively re-
lated to employee work withdrawal.
Hypothesis 2b: Employees’ perception of availability of work
flexibility-related family-friendly programs will be
negatively related to employee work withdrawal.
The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership
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
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:
Hypothesis 3a: Transformational leadership moderates the relation-

ship between the perceived availability of childcare-
related family-friendly programs and organizational
commitment in such a way that the relationship is more
positive when the supervisor is more transformational.
Hypothesis 3b: Transformational leadership moderates the relation-
ship between the perceived availability of work
flexibility-related family-friendly programs and orga-
nizational commitment in such a way that the rela-
tionship is more positive when the supervisor is more
transformational.
Hypothesis 4a: Transformational leadership moderates the relation-
ship between the perceived availability of childcare-
related family-friendly programs and work withdrawal
in such a way that the relationship is more negative

when the supervisor is more transformational.
Hypothesis 4b: Transformational leadership moderates the relation-
ship between the perceived availability of work
flexibility-related family-friendly programs and work
withdrawal in such a way that the relationship is more
negative when the supervisor is more transformational.
Method
The Context of This Study
The context is widely recognized as an important dimension influenc-

ing the behavioral processes of any organized endeavor (Luthans, Avolio,
Walumbwa, & Li, 2005). For example, work and family systems have been
found to be influenced by the wider social, economic, cultural, and politi-
cal contexts (Yang, Chen, Choi, & Zhou, 2000). Studies have also demon-
strated that cultural orientation affects the influence of family-friendly
programs (e.g., Spector et al., 2004; Wang, Lawler, Walumbwa, & Shi,
2004) and transformational leadership (e.g., Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003;
Walumbwa, Lawler, & Avolio, 2007) on a variety of work attitudes and
behaviors. Thus, investigating the effects of family-friendly programs and
leadership across cultures require at least a broad understanding of the
cultural contexts in which researchers are conducting research, which for
this study are China, Kenya, and Thailand.
Although these countries have been described as emerging economies,
they are increasingly becoming more integrated into the global market
and are much more attractive to foreign investors. For example, China and
Thailand were recently ranked among the top hot spots in the category
of Asian developing economies by the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development and the British magazine Corporate Locations.
Kenya was recently ranked by the World Bank among the top countries
in Africa with fewer regulatory business barriers (World Bank, 2004).
In addition, the labor force in these countries is increasingly becoming
more composed of families where both spouses work full-time paid jobs
(Spector et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2004). For example, in 1997, female
share of paid employment in industry and services was 45% in Thailand,
39% in China.1 In Kenya, women’s participation in urban labor force has
risen from 39 to 56% since 1978.2 We suggest that with the increasingly
1
For details, see http://www.icftu-apro.org/aplabour
2
For details, see http://www.wiego.org/papers
diverse workforce, family-friendly programs may have significant impact

on sustaining competitive advantage and realizing great potential to attract
global investment.
Furthermore, the impact of collectivistic culture in these countries
would further promote openness to family-friendly programs. Employees
in these cultures may be more likely to view themselves as part of the
collective (i.e., the organization) and expect being taken care of by their
organizations as a return for their loyalty to the long-term relationship.
Hofstede (1997) suggested that in collectivist society, “the relationship
between employer and employee is seen in moral terms; it resembles a
family relationship with mutual obligations of protection in exchange for
loyalty” (p. 64). Thus, the notion of family-friendly programs may be
compatible with these cultures.
Sample and Procedure
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
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
Family-friendly programs. We measured six family-friendly pro-

grams: on-site childcare facility, childcare referral service, subsidized
childcare cost, flexible work schedules, flexible work arrangement, and
personal and family leave. These programs were selected because they
appear to have received the most empirical research attention in the West
(Grover & Crooker, 1995). We also conducted an initial survey, which
suggested that these programs were more widely used by participating
banks than alternate family-friendly benefits.
To help employees complete the family-friendly program items, a short
description of each program was provided to ensure respondents under-
stood the program in a similar way. Sample items included: “Have a child
care center sponsored by the company” and “Allows some flexibility on the
time employees start and leave work.” Respondents were asked to answer
“yes” if a particular program was provided to them by their organization
and “no” if a program was not offered. These responses were then dummy
coded into 0 = no and 1 = yes. Respondents were also asked to indicate
how important they perceived each program to assist in balancing their
work and personal life. Responses were made on a 4-point scale (1 = not
needed to 4 = essential service).
We conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to determine the underlying structure of family-
friendly programs. According to Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993), it is highly
desirable that a hypothesis that has been suggested by mainly EFA should
be subsequently confirmed or disapproved by obtaining new set of data
and subjecting these to a more rigorous statistical technique. Because we
were unable to collect another set of data to complete this process, we
decided to divide our sample into two subsamples to serve the purpose of
conducting both EFA and CFA.
First, we randomly selected 100 participants from our sample and
performed EFA. The individual ratings of importance of family-friendly
programs were analyzed using principle axis and varimax rotation. Two
factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, explaining 60.5% of the
variance. We labeled the first factor “Childcare Benefits” (e.g., childcare
referral service, subsidized childcare cost, and on-site childcare facility).

The second factor was labeled “Work Flexibility,” including flexible work
schedule, flexible work arrangement, and family and personal leave. In
addition, our results indicated that all the factor loadings were above .70
on the two factors, providing evidence that the items captured the intended
constructs.
Second, using the remaining sample of 375 participants, we performed
CFA using AMOS maximum likelihood estimation to evaluate the validity
of the two-factor structures in each country (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999).
The goodness-of-fit (GFI) ranged from .97 to .98, the comparative fit index
(CFI) .98–.99, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
.02–.06, suggesting a very good fit for the data. On the basis of these re-
sults, we derived employees’ perceived availability of childcare benefits by
summing respondents’ answers of availability of childcare referral service,
subsidized childcare cost, and on-site childcare facility. Similarly, we de-
rived employees’ perceived availability of flexibility benefits by summing
respondents’ answers of availability of flexible work schedule, flexible
work arrangement, and family and personal leave.
Transformational leadership. We used 16 items from the multifactor
leadership questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5× short (Bass & Avolio, 2000)
to measure transformational leadership. The items measuring attributed
charisma were not included because they have been criticized for rep-
resenting leadership impact and not leadership behavior (Yukl, 2002).
Ratings were completed on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all to
5 = frequently, if not always. A sample item is: “Gets me to look at prob-
lems from many different angles.”
Although considerable evidence of the validity and reliability of the
MLQ has been compiled, controversy over its dimensionality remains
(Bono & Judge, 2003). Consistent with recently reported summary of
studies using the MLQ (Avolio, Bass, Walumbwa, & Zhu, 2004), the four
dimensions were interrelated in our data, with an average correlation co-
efficient (r) of .68. Because these component dimensions were correlated
and consistent with many prior studies (e.g., Bass et al., 2003; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2007), we
combined the four components into a single transformational leadership
factor.
To justify combining the four components into a single transforma-
tional leadership factor, we conducted additional analyses on our data.
First, using AMOS maximum likelihood procedure, we performed a CFA
loading the 16 individual items directly onto a single factor (χ 2 = 245.09,
df = 90, GFI = .94, AGFI= .91, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05). Against
this one-factor model, we tested a four-factor model in which the four di-
mensions (e.g., idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration) served as indicators of

transformational leadership (χ 2 = 51.18, df = 2, GFI = .94, AGFI = .77,
CFI = .95, RMSEA = .22). The fit statistics of one-factor model suggested
a more satisfactory fit to the data than the four-factor model. Furthermore,
the ratio of the differences in chi-square to the differences in degrees of
freedom was 194.91/88 = 2.21, p < .01, indicating that these two models
are statistically different. In sum, these results revealed that the one-factor
model was a much better fit for our data than the four-factor model. Thus,
we felt it was empirically appropriate to treat transformational leadership
as a single factor (Cronbach’s alpha = .91).
Organizational commitment. We used a short version of Mowday et al.
(1979) scale to assess organizational commitment (Cronbach’s alpha =
.88). Evidence for this scale’s reliability has been provided in prior cross-
cultural research (e.g., Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, & Lawler,
2000; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). A sample item is: “I would be very
happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.” Responses
were made on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).
Work withdrawal. Work withdrawal was captured using a scale de-
veloped by Hanisch and Hulin (1990). Respondents were asked to record
the number of times that they have done each of nine behaviors iden-
tified in the past year on an 8-point scale (1 = never; 8 = more than
once a week). Evidence for this scale’s reliability has been provided in
prior cross-cultural research (e.g., Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). A sample
item is: “How often do you think about being late for work.” The internal
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .83.
Control variables. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Burley, 1994),
we controlled for country (dummy coded), age, gender, marital and
parental status, and tenure in all our analyses to reduce alternative ex-
planations. Perceived importance of childcare benefits and flexibility ben-
efits were also used as controls in all our analyses, given suggestions that
they can influence the impact of family-friendly programs (e.g., Frone &
Yardley, 1996; Lambert, 2000). Perceived importance of childcare (Cron-
bach’s alpha = .64) and work flexibility benefits (Cronbach’s alpha = .71)
were derived by averaging individual’s importance rating (1 = not needed
to 4 = essential service) of each relevant family-friendly program.
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
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.
Level of Analysis and Analytical Approach
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 )
(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 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and zero-order

correlations among the study variables. There were significant and posi-
tive relationships between transformational leadership and both flexibility
benefits (r = .15, p < .01) and organizational commitment (r = .31, p <
.01). There were also significant correlations between childcare benefits
and organizational commitment (r = .15, p < .05) and flexibility benefits
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†
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.
and organizational commitment (r = .14, p < .01), providing initial support

for Hypothesis 1. Organizational commitment was significantly associated
with work withdrawal (r = −.16, p < .01), as was the correlation between
flexibility benefits and work withdrawal (r = .28, p < .01).
Table 2 provides a summary of the HLM models and results used to
test Hypotheses 1–2. Hypothesis 1 predicted that family-friendly programs
would be significantly related to organizational commitment. As expected,
childcare benefit was significantly and positively related to organizational

commitment (r 10 = .15, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 1a. However,
flexibility benefit was not related to organizational commitment (r 20 =
.02, ns), failing to support Hypothesis 1b. Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted
that family-friendly programs would be related to work withdrawal. These
hypotheses were not supported (r 10= .01, r 20 = .09, ns).
Hypotheses 3 and 4 suggested that transformational leadership would
moderate the relationships between family-friendly programs and orga-
nizational commitment and work withdrawal, respectively. These moder-
ated hypotheses constitute cross-level relationships. Following Hofmann
et al. (2003), we separated out the cross-level from the between-group
interactions. By doing this, we were able to partition the total variance
of family-friendly programs into their within- and between-group com-
ponents, allowing us to test which source of variance is interacting with
transformational leadership, while also avoiding the results of spurious
cross-level relationships.
To investigate the interaction between family-friendly programs and
transformational leadership in predicting organizational commitment and
work withdrawal, two models were tested. First, organizational commit-
ment and work withdrawal were regressed on family-friendly programs
and transformational leadership (preliminary models). These models pro-
vided overall assessments of the relationships between family-friendly
programs and organizational commitment and work withdrawal, and es-
timated main effect of transformational leadership. Most importantly,
the models assessed the variability in the relationships between family-
friendly programs and outcome variables across groups. If, for example,
there is significant variance in these relationships across groups, then the
tests of Hypotheses 3 and 4 are the extent to which transformational lead-
ership explains this variability (Hofmann et al., 2003).
As shown in the top part of Table 3 (preliminary model), results re-
vealed (a) insignificant variance in the Level 1 slopes relating childcare
benefits to organizational commitment (U 1 variance = .01, ns) and (b)
a significant variance in the Level 1 slopes relating flexibility benefits to
organizational commitment (U 2 variance = .04, p < .01). These findings
suggest that the magnitude of within-group relationship between child-
care benefits and organizational commitment remains the same across
groups, whereas the magnitude of within-group relationship between flex-
ibility benefits and organizational commitment varies significantly across
groups. In the second model (bottom of Table 3), transformational lead-
ership was added as a predictor of the variance in the slopes relating
family-friendly programs to organizational commitment. This model also
investigated the possibility of a significant between-group interaction
between family-friendly programs and transformational leadership (i.e.,
TABLE 3
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Models and Results for Hypotheses 3
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∗∗
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∗
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
group-mean family-friendly programs interacting with transformational

leadership).
The results of the second model revealed that the between-group inter-
actions were not significant (r 04 = .00, r 05 = −.06, ns), whereas the cross-
level interaction between flexibility benefits and organizational commit-
ment was significant (r 22 = .18, p < .01). After including transformational
leadership in the model, the residual variance in the Level 1 slopes relating
flexibility benefits to organizational commitment reduced (U 2 variance =
.03, p < .05). Using these two variance components, we calculated that the
R2 for transformational leadership was .25 (i.e., [.04–.03]/.04). However,
the cross over interaction between childcare benefits and organizational
commitment was not significant (r 11 = −.01, p >.1), thus failing to support
Hypothesis 3a.
Similarly, as shown in the upper part of Table 4 (preliminary model),
the results revealed (a) a significant variance in the Level 1 slopes relating
childcare benefits to work withdrawal (U 1 variance = .02, p < .10) and (b)
a significant variance in the Level 1 slopes relating flexibility benefits to
work withdrawal (U 2 variance = .05, p < .10). These findings suggest that
the magnitude of within-group relationships between both childcare and
flexibility benefits and work withdrawal vary significantly across groups.
In the second model (bottom of Table 4), transformational leadership
was added as a predictor of the variance in the slopes relating family-
friendly programs to work withdrawal. Results of the second model re-
vealed the following: (a) the between-group interactions were not signifi-
cant (r 04 = −.15, r 05 = .08, ns), (b) the cross-level interactions between
both childcare and flexibility benefits and transformational leadership were
significant (r 11 = −.16, p < .01; r 22 = −.15, p < .05), and (c) the resid-
ual variances in the Level 1 slopes relating both childcare and flexibility
benefits to work withdrawal were no longer significant after including
transformational leadership in the model (U 1 variance = .01, U 2 variance
= .03, ns). Using these variance components, we calculated that the R2 for
transformational leadership in the case of childcare benefit was .50 (i.e.
[.02–.01]/.02), and the R2 for transformational leadership in the case of
flexibility benefit was .40 (i.e. [.05–.03]/.05).
Because all other variables in the study are measured at the individual
level, except for transformational leadership, questions may be raised as
to why transformational and not other variables. As pointed out by our
reviewers, this might also make the interpretation of the findings com-
plex regardless of the theoretical and empirical justification for treating
transformational leadership as a group-level variable (see our discussion
under level of analysis and analytical approach). To address the possibil-
ity that our findings are not merely as a result of treating transformational
leadership at the group-level of analysis, we also analyzed our data using
TABLE 4
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Models and Results for Hypotheses 4
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†
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
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
Low Transformational Leadership

3.8 High Transformational Leadership
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
Figure 2: Moderating Effect of Transformational Leadership in the

Relationship Between Flexible Benefits and Organizational Commitment.
transformational leadership and other measures as individual-level vari-
ables. Results are consistent with the findings above. Specifically, results
revealed that transformational leadership significantly moderated the re-
lationships between work flexibility and organizational commitment (B =
.08, SE = .04, p < .05), between childcare benefits and work withdrawal
(B = −.17, SE = .07, p < .05), and between work flexibility and work
withdrawal (B = −.11, SE = .05, p < .05). However, transformational
leadership did not moderate the relationship between childcare benefits
and organizational commitment (B = .04, SE = .06, ns).
To further explore the nature and form of the significant interactions,
we plotted the significant interactions using the individual-level results
presented above by developing separate equations for one standard devi-
ation above and below the mean of transformational leadership (Aiken &
West, 1991). Figure 2 shows that the relationship between work flexibility
benefits and organizational commitment is more positive when transfor-
mational leadership behavior is rated high versus low, providing further
support for Hypothesis 3b. Similarly, Figures 3 and 4 suggests that the re-
lationship between both childcare and work flexibility benefits and work
withdrawal, respectively, is more positive when transformational leader-
ship behavior is rated low versus high, further supporting Hypotheses 4a
and 4b.
3 Low Transformational Leadership
High Transformational Leadership
2.5
2
Work Withdrawa
1.5
0.5
Few Flexibility Benefits Many Flexibility Benefits

Relationship Between Flexible Benefits and Work Withdrawal.
Low Transformational Leadership

High Transformational Leadership
2.5
2
Work Withdrawa
1.5
0.5
Few Chidcare Benefits Many Childcare Benefits

Relationship Between Childcare Benefits and Work Withdrawal.
Discussion and Implications
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
employees perceive their supervisors as inspiring, challenging, and indi-

vidually considerate as would be the case with transformational leaders.
These findings imply that although offering family-friendly benefits is
necessary, they are not sufficient by themselves to affect employee work
attitudes and behaviors. Indeed, the graph of each interaction suggests that
the work outcome is always “worst” under conditions of lower level of
transformational leadership and more family-friendly benefits. The results
suggest that employees are likely to be more resentful when supervisors are
less supportive towards use of family-friendly benefits. Thus, an integra-
tion of family-friendly programs with leadership that is supportive, caring,
and empathetic such as transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999; Bass,
1998) is likely to be more effective in enhancing employee organizational
commitment and reducing withdrawal behaviors.
Future research can expand this study framework and include other
variables as possible moderators of the relation between family-friendly
policies and work-related attitudes and behaviors. These may include
variables such as family characteristics, importance of family-friendly
programs (Frone & Yardley, 1996; Lambert, 2000), and other global con-
structs such as perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). For example, family-friendly programs may
have a stronger effect on employee attitudes and behaviors for those with-
out extended family members.
The present findings also have some practical implications. First,
the findings suggest that firms operating in these countries should care-
fully consider family-responsive human resource programs in order to
remain competitive and retain highly skilled and committed employees.
Although few family-friendly programs are utilized in most developing
countries (Chiu & Ng, 1999), our findings suggest that family-friendly
programs combined with supportive leadership behaviors such as trans-
formational leadership might have some positive effects on employees’
levels of commitment and reduced work withdrawal. This is particularly
important as traditional familial relationships in these countries continue to
break down due to economic, social, political, and technological changes.
Fortunately, past research has revealed that leaders can be trained to be
transformational (Barling, Weber, Kelloway, 1996), helping employees
deal with work and family issues.
Finally, our findings suggest that for family-friendly benefits to have
greatest impact, management support is required. That is, organizations
need to place a high priority on integrating family-friendly programs into
the workplace environment by training their managers to be supportive
and increasing their awareness of work–family issues. More importantly,
our findings suggest that family-friendly programs are more likely to
achieve their intended effects on employees when an organization’s culture
supports these initiatives not necessarily as a matter of policy but more

importantly as a strategic imperative.
Limitations and Conclusions
Several caveats should be taken into consideration when interpreting

the findings of this study. First, the cross-sectional design clearly limited
the degree to which we could make causal inferences and test the strength
of the relationships overtime. Replications and extensions of our findings
using experimental and longitudinal designs are needed. Second, because
variables were measured with a common method and source, it can be
argued that common method bias is responsible for the observed results.
However, given our focus on the cross-level moderation, it seems unlikely
that common method bias could account completely for our pattern of
findings. Future research should use multitrait–multimethod techniques to
be able to overcome this potential limitation. An additional limitation was
that the sample was limited to the banking industry. Although this allowed
us to control for industry effect across the three countries, it nevertheless
potentially limits generalizability of the results to other sectors. To provide
evidence of generalizability, future research is needed to replicate our
findings in other industries and occupational settings.
Despite its limitations, the study has made several tentative contri-
butions to the literature in work–family issues. In general, the results
provide, perhaps for the first time, fairly strong moderating effect of
transformational leadership in the relationships between family-friendly
programs and organizational commitment and work withdrawal, respec-
tively. However, because this is the first study to show the interactive effects
of family-friendly programs and transformational leadership in predicting
work-related attitudes and behaviors, future research should attempt a
replication of our findings using samples from other national cultures.
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.
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
(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.
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.
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
three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

14, 1083–1101.
Walumbwa FO, Lawler JJ, Avolio BJ. (2007). Leadership, individual differences and work
attitudes: A cross-culture investigation. Applied Psychology: An International Re-
view, 56, 1–19.
Walumbwa FO, Lawler JJ, Avolio BJ, Wang P, Shi K. (2005). Transformational leadership
and work-related attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy
across cultures. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 2–16.
Wang P, Lawler JJ, Walumbwa FO, Shi K. (2004). Work-family conflict and organizational
withdrawal: The moderating effect of cultural differences. International Journal of
Stress Management, 11, 392–412.
World Bank. (2004). Doing business in 2005: Removing obstacles to growth. Washington,
DC: Oxford University Press.
Yang N, Chen CC, Choi J, Zhou Y. (2000). Sources of work-family conflict: A Sino-U.S.
comparison of the effects of work and family demands. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 113–123.
Yukl GA. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Wang Walubwa Family-Friendly Programs, Organizational Commitment and Work Withdrawal

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Wang Walubwa Family-Friendly Programs, Organizational Commitment and Work Withdrawal

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

2007, 60, 397–427

FAMILY-FRIENDLY PROGRAMS, ORGANIZATIONAL

Family-friendly programs (i.e., childcare, time-flexible programs, etc.)

Because leadership has been suggested as one of the single biggest

& Shamir, 2002), fostering cooperation in the workplace (Avolio, 1999;

Theory and Hypotheses

Although variation exists from organization to organization over what

Figure 1: Hypothesized Relationships.

Organizational Commitment and Work Withdrawal

Organizational commitment and work withdrawal represents some of

Organizational commitment is an individual’s identification with and in-

Social Exchange Theory

One theoretical basis for expecting associations (positive or negative)

In terms of family-friendly programs, exchange theory and the norm of

Hypothesis 1a: Employees’ perception of availability of childcare-

Hypothesis 2a: Employees’ perception of availability of childcare-

The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership

Hypothesis 3a: Transformational leadership moderates the relation-

in such a way that the relationship is more negative

The Context of This Study

The context is widely recognized as an important dimension influenc-

diverse workforce, family-friendly programs may have significant impact

Sample and Procedure

Family-friendly programs. We measured six family-friendly pro-

referral service, subsidized childcare cost, and on-site childcare facility).

stimulation, and individualized consideration) served as indicators of

Level of Analysis and Analytical Approach

Table 1 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and zero-order

and organizational commitment (r = .14, p < .01), providing initial support

childcare benefit was significantly and positively related to organizational

group-mean family-friendly programs interacting with transformational

Low Transformational Leadership

Figure 2: Moderating Effect of Transformational Leadership in the

3 Low Transformational Leadership

High Transformational Leadership

Few Flexibility Benefits Many Flexibility Benefits

Figure 3: Moderating Effect of Transformational Leadership in the

Low Transformational Leadership

Few Chidcare Benefits Many Childcare Benefits

Figure 4: Moderating Effect of Transformational Leadership in the

Discussion and Implications

employees perceive their supervisors as inspiring, challenging, and indi-

supports these initiatives not necessarily as a matter of policy but more

Limitations and Conclusions

Several caveats should be taken into consideration when interpreting

three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen