Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Work–family policies in Korean organizations: Human resources management and institutional explanations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Asian Business & Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study uses a representative sample of 1905 Korean organizations to examine the presence of work–family policies. We derive hypotheses from explanations that animate human resources (HR) management, and develop new institutional ones for predicting the presence of work–family policies in Korea. A logistic regression model is employed to identify predictors of the presence of four types of work–family policies across Korean organizations. This study uses a detailed measurement of HR strategies to examine organizational responsiveness to institutional pressures. In addition, we utilize the characteristics of corporate governance structures to test institutional effects on work–family policies. The findings suggest that the presence of work–family policies across Korean organizations is influenced by both the characteristics of the workforce (a HR management explanation) and the organization's responsiveness to the external environment (an institutional explanation). Notably, organizations in an enterprise run by professional managers are sensitive to emerging social norms, and are more likely to have work–family policies. In addition, organizations exposed to international norms through shareholding linkages are more likely to have work–family policies. Our findings suggest that Korean organizations have provided different work–family benefits in response to different concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Besides leave benefits, laws have revised women's restricted work hours because of concerns about chemical exposure and other safety issues, and strengthened sanctions for sexual harassment. The 2001 reforms reflect a fairly broad attempt to revise employment law to better support working women.

  2. Since 2001, employers failing to retain the posts of employees on leave have been fined around US$5000.

  3. The pay for maternity leave and parental leave was around $1300 and $200 per month in 2001, respectively. Pay for parental leave had annually increased, reaching up to $500 per month in 2007.

  4. The Labor Standards Act in Korea prescribes that offering flexible working hours is up to employers’ discretion.

  5. This law has been established as ‘the Law for Equal Employment and Supports for Work and Family Balance’ since December 2007.

  6. Established as ‘the Law of Nurturing Infants and Young Children’ since 1991.

  7. This law does not include formal sanctions for non-compliance. It is therefore said that this law is advisory to employers rather than legally required.

  8. The WPS is funded by the National Research Council for Economics, Humanities and Social Science (approval number: 33603), and supported by the Ministry of Labor, Korea Employers Federation, the Korean Labor Economic Association, Korea Industrial Relations Association, Korean Sociological Association and Korean Academy of Management.

  9. Male employees can request 3 days’ unpaid leave to help with their wife's delivery. On the other hand, parental leave is available to both working fathers and mothers, up to 1 year.

  10. We code those organizations as 1 if organizations have either a childcare center or childcare subsidy.

  11. The Cronbach α for this index is around 0.68.

  12. The Cronbach α for this index is around 0.88.

  13. According to Korean finance laws, publicly traded firms are required to adopt outside boards. Therefore, researchers are sure that monitoring systems such as outside boards can be adopted not only to keep in check professional managers, but also to fulfil legal requirements of publicly traded firms. To sort out the net effect of the professional management system, we have to control whether the focal organization is listed or not. However, WPS 2007 data set does not include such information. Alternatively, we can acquire that information from WPS 2003, which includes another representative Korean organization sample. From that data set, the correlation between whether or not an organization is a publicly traded firm and the professional management system is about 11 per cent, too low to surmise theoretical connection between them. We can, therefore, indirectly argue that a professional management system brings institutional pressures into the organizations through outside boards.

  14. This question includes these responses: (i) An ownership management system, where the owner has the authority to make most decision and directly oversees management activities; (ii) An owner-centric management system, where a professional manager is entrusted with management of the company but very little authority is transferred to the manager; (iii) A system where much management authority is transferred to a professional manager, but the owner still retains authority over major management decisions involving executive-level personnel management, new investment and so on; (iv) A professional management system that is completely independent from the owner's influence, where ownership and management are completely separate; and (v) None of these. We use (iv) as the professional management indicator and others as reference groups.

  15. The mean percentage of male employees in manufacturing sectors is about 72 per cent in our data set.

References

  • Almeida, D.M., Wethington, E. and Chandler, A. (1999) Daily transmission of tensions between marital dyads and parent–child dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family 61 (1): 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, E. and Batt, R. (1994) The New American Workplace: Transforming Work Systems in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, E., Kalleberg, A.L. and Berg, P. (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., Dobbin, F. and Jennings, P.D. (1986) War and peace: The evolution of modern personnel administration in US industry. American Journal of Sociology 92 (2): 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair-Loy, M. and Wharton, A. (2002) Employees’ use of work–family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces 80 (3): 813–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cha, Y. (2010) Reinforcing the ‘separate spheres’ arrangement: The effect of spousal overwork on the employment of men and women in dual-earner households. American Sociological Review 75 (2): 303–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. and Kalleberg, A. (2006) Family-friendly organizations? Work and family programs in the 1990s. Work and Occupations 33 (2): 191–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deitch, C. and Huffman, M. (2001) Family responsive benefits and the two-tiered labor market. In: R. Hertz and N. Marshall (eds.) Working Families: The Transformation of the American Home. London: University of California Press, pp. 103–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F. and Kelly, E. (2007) How to stop harassment: Professional construction of legal compliance in organizations. American Journal of Sociology 112 (4): 1203–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F. and Sutton, F. (1998) The strength of a weak state: The rights revolution and the rise of human resources management divisions. American Journal of Sociology 104 (2): 441–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. (1990) Legal environments and organizational governance: The expansion of due process in the American workplace. American Journal of Sociology 95 (6): 1401–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. (1992) Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology 97 (6): 1531–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frone, M. (2000) Work–family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (6): 888–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, P. and Galaskiewicz, J. (2004) Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 (3): 283–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerstel, N. and Clawson, D. (2001) Unions’ responses to family concerns. Social Problems 48 (2): 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, J. and Fujimoto, T. (1995) Employer characteristics and the provision of family-responsive policies. Work and Occupations 22 (4): 380–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J. (1994) Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in Work-Family issues. Academy of Management Journal 37 (2): 350–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, D., Edward, R. and Reich, M. (1982) Segmented Work, Divided Work. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. and Hinings, C.R. (2002) Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal 45 (1): 58–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guler, I., Guillén, M. and Macpherson, J. (2002) Global competition, institutions and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly 47 (2): 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, D. and Roth, L. (1999) The state, courts and maternity policies in US organizations: Specifying institutional mechanisms. American Sociological Review 64 (1): 41–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, J. and Koo, J.-S. (2010) Institutional isomorphism and decoupling among Korean firms: Adoption of performance compensation systems. Korean Journal of Sociology 44 (3): 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. (1977) The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology 82 (5): 929–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W.J., Zelner, B.A. and Guillén, M.F. (2005) The worldwide diffusion of market-oriented infrastructure reform, 1977–1999. American Sociological Review 70 (6): 871–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P. and Simons, T. (1995) Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness to work–family issues. Academy of Management Journal 38 (5): 1466–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, J.-Y., Jeong, H.-S., Ryu, I.-R., Kim, S.-Y. and Jang, E.-S. (2004) Report on Maternity Protection and Female Friendly Policies: Focusing on Family Leave Provisions. Seoul, Korea: Korean Labor Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalleberg, A.L. and Van Buren, M.E. (1996) Is bigger better? Explaining the relationship between organization size and job rewards. American Sociological Review 61 (1): 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E. (2003) The strange history of employer-sponsored child care: Interested actors, uncertainty and the transformation of law in organizational fields. American Journal of Sociology 109 (3): 606–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E. (2006) Work–family policies: The United States in international perspective. In: M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. Kossek and S. Sweet (eds.) Work–Family Handbook: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 99–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E. (2010) Failure to update: An institutional perspective on noncompliance with the family and medical leave act. Law and Society Review 44 (1): 33–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E. and Dobbin, F. (1999) Civil rights law at work: Sex discrimination and the rise of maternity leave policies. American Journal of Sociology 105 (2): 455–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, E. et al (2008) Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work–family initiatives on work–family conflict and business outcomes. Academy of Management Annals 2 (1): 305–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S.-M. (2008) Women and family-friendly policies in Korean government. International Review of Administrative Sciences 74 (3): 436–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D. (1994) Cui Bono? Employee benefit packages. American Behavioral Scientist 37 (7): 963–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, T., Katz, C. and McKersie, B. (1986) The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koo, J.-S. (2009) A study on maternity protection in Korean companies, focusing on the adoption and decoupling of practices. Survey Research 10 (3): 107–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korea Press Foundation. (2011) Newspaper search service, http://www.kinds.or.kr, accessed 9 September 2011.

  • Lee, H.-Y., Baek, K.-M. and Jang, Y.-S. (2007) The expansion of outside directorates in Korea: Agency control, resource dependency and institutional perspectives’. Korean Journal of Sociology 41 (2): 27–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mennino, S.F., Rubin, B.A. and Brayfield, A. (2005) Home-to-job and job-to-home spillover: The impact of company policies and workplace culture. Sociological Quarterly 46 (1): 107–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizruchi, M. and Stearns, L.B. (2001) Getting deals done: The use of social networks in bank decision-making. American Sociological Review 66 (5): 647–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moen, P. and Roehling, P. (2005) The Career Mystique: Cracks in the American Dream. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. and Nielsen, L. (2000) Cops, counsel and entrepreneurs: Constructing the role of inside counsel in large corporations. Law and Society Review 34 (2): 457–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orrù, M., Biggart, N. and Hamilton, G. (1991) Organizational isomorphism in East Asia. In: W. Powell and P. DiMaggio (eds.) New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 338–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterman, P. (1995) Work/family programs and the employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (4): 681–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D.A., Jennings, P.D. and Zhou, X. (1993) Late adoption of the multidivisional form by large US corporations: Institutional, political and economic accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (1): 100–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, G-S., Jang, Y-S. and Lee, H-Y. (2007) The interplay between globalness and localness: Korea's globalization revisited. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 48 (4): 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (2003) External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W., Koput, K. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1): 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P. and Dowling, G. (2002) Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 23 (12): 1077–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M. and Scott, W. (1998) A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (4): 877–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. (2007) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P. (2007) Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, D. and Meyer, J. (1993) Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society 22 (4): 487–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J. and Dobbin, F. (1996) The two faces of governance: Responses to legal uncertainty in US firms, 1955–1985. American Sociological Review 61 (5): 794–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J., Dobbin, F., Meyer, J. and Scott, W. (1994) The legalization of the workplace. American Journal of Sociology 99 (4): 944–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoy, J. (1993) Intra-professional politics and professional regulation: A case study of the ABA commission and professionalism. Work and Occupations 20 (1): 90–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal, J. and Zajac, E. (1998) The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (1): 127–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S.J., de Menezes, L. and Lasaosa, A. (2003) Family-friendly management in Great Britain: Testing various perspectives. Industrial Relations 42 (2): 221–250.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this article were presented at American Sociological Association meetings (Boston, MA, 3 August 2008) and Sociological Research Institute at the University of Minnesota (April 2008). We appreciate comments and helpful suggestions from Elizabeth Heger Boyle, Minzee Kim, Phyllis Moen, Dalhia Mani, Wesley Longhofer, and other colleagues of the Globalization group in the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, 909 Social Science Building, Minneapolis, 55455, MN, USA

    Kyungmin Baek & Erin L Kelly

  2. Department of Public Administration, Yonsei University, Seodaemun-Ku, Sinchon-Dong 134, Seoul, 120-749, Korea

    Yong Suk Jang

Authors
  1. Kyungmin Baek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erin L Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yong Suk Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyungmin Baek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baek, K., Kelly, E. & Jang, Y. Work–family policies in Korean organizations: Human resources management and institutional explanations. Asian Bus Manage 11, 515–539 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2012.20

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2012.20

Keywords

Search

Navigation