Leave Programs/Time Off and Work-Stress Family Employee Benefits Programs, Organizational Commitment, and Self-Efficacy Among Municipal Employees (Mulvaney 2014)

Article
Public Personnel Management

2014, Vol. 43(4) 459 -4 8 9
Leave Program s/Tim e O ff © The A u th o r(s ) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
and W ork-S tress Family sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

D O I: 10.1 17 7 /0 0 9 10 2 6 0 14 5 2 9 6 6 1
Employee Benefits Programs, ppm.sagepub.com
®SAGE
O rganizational C o m m itm e n t,
and Self-Efficacy Am ong
Municipal Employees
M ic h a e l A . M u lv a n e y 1
A b s tra ct
T h e p u rp o se o f th is stu dy w as to exam ine th e ro le b e tw e e n fa m ily -frie n d ly e m ployee
benefits p ro g ra m s (FFEBPs) and org an izatio na l c o m m itm e n t and em p lo ye e m o tiv a tio n
(self-efficacy) am ong a s e c to r o f m unicipal em ployees. In p a rtic u la r, th e effects o f
tw o FFEBPs (leave p ro g ra m s /tim e o ff p ro g ra m s and w o rk -s tre s s fa m ily p ro gram s)
w e re assessed on org an izatio na l c o m m itm e n t and jo b self-efficacy o u tco m e s. T h re e
h u n d re d fo rty -s e v e n local g o v e rn m e n t professionals c o m p le te d an o n lin e survey
th a t was used t o m easure th e variables o f in te re s t. Results fo u n d significant mean
differences o f e m p lo ye es’ jo b self-efficacy and org an izatio na l c o m m itm e n t levels
b e tw e e n agencies w ith w o r k - fa m ily stress m anagem ent FFEBPs and agencies w ith o u t
th ese p ro gram s. H o w e v e r, th e effects o f leave p ro g ra m s /tim e o ff FFEBPs w e re n o t
significant p re d ic to rs o f an e m p lo ye e ’s jo b self-efficacy.
Keywords
e m p lo ye e benefits, hum an re s o u rc e m anagem ent, m o tiv a tio n th e o ry , w o rk p la c e
a ttitu d e s and behaviors
In tr o d u c t io n
The American workplace is undergoing significant changes as a result of the transfor
mations in family structures during recent years (Veiga, Baldridge, & Eddleston,
'Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Michael A. Mulvaney, D epartm ent o f Recreation Adm inistration, Eastern Illinois University, 600 Lincoln
Avenue, Charleston, IL 61920, USA.
Email: mamulvaney@eiu.edu
460 Public Personnel M anagem ent 43(4)
2004). The number of dual-career households, workers with eldercare responsibility,

single-parent families, and working parents with young children are increasingly com
mon in the workplace (Breaugh & Frye, 2008; Kim & Wiggins, 2011). Researchers
have suggested this shift in workforce demographics has led to increased work-family
conflicts among employees, while introducing the balance between work and non
work responsibilities as a significant concern for employers and their compensation
and employee incentive programs (Allen, 2001). These work-family conflicts have
also generated employer concerns centered on the job perfonnance and overall pro
ductivity of their employees (Johnson, 1995). In addition, previous studies have found
links between work-family conflicts and lower job satisfaction, increases in employee
turnover, reductions in productivity, and increases in employees’ stress levels (Veiga
et al., 2004).
Some human resource (HR) forecasters are also predicting above average (volun
tary) employee turnover. Largely driven by the belief that the economy is stabilizing
and slowly growing in some areas, the number of workers leaving their agencies is
expected to increase in the next 5 years after remaining fairly flat in recent years. For
instance, a HayGroup (2012) study found that voluntary employee turnover within the
United States is expected to be near 23% between 2013 and 2018 and spike at almost
25% in 2014. Consistent with these forecasted trends, a study of service workers and
employers in the United States found that 32% of employers expressed concern over
losing their high performing workers in the next few years, while 33% of workers
indicated that they will likely start looking for a new job when the economy picks up
(Grasz, 2010).
Other research has pointed to job attitudes, such as employee engagement and job
satisfaction, as possible key catalysts for employee turnover (Gallup, 2013). In par
ticular, the findings from a recent Gallup survey indicated that 30% of workers in the
United States are engaged in their work, suggesting that 70% of American workers are
not reaching their full potential (Gallup, 2013). As management literature has identi
fied connections between employee engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover inten
tions, agencies face increasing challenges in retaining employees (Yalabik, Popaitoon,
Chowne, & Rayton, 2013).
In response to the potential rises in employee turnover and the changing personal
pressures facing many of their employees, fringe benefit packages such as family-
triendly employee benefits programs (FFEBPs) are becoming more readily available
and offered by public agencies. From employee assistance programs (EAPs) and
work-family resource centers to leave banks/leave sharing programs and sabbaticals,
agencies are offering more flexible working conditions in an effort to assist their
employees in managing these work-life pressures, create a more family-friendly work
ing environment, and foster a more productive working environment.
The purpose of this study was to explore the link between two FFEBPs and job
attitudes (organizational commitment) and employee motivation (self-efficacy) among
municipal employees. In particular, the effects of two FFEBPs (work-family stress
management programs and leave and time off programs) were assessed on organiza
tional commitment and job self-efficacy outcomes. Work-family stress management
M u lv a n e y 461
programs and leave programs and time off programs were explored in an effort to
build upon existing FFEBP research and in response to previous public sector research
advocating for examination of these specific FFEBPs (see Mulvaney, 2011).
Social Cognitive Theory served as the theoretical framework for the study.
Bandura’s (1991) Social Cognitive Theory focuses on the bi-directional interaction of
the person, behavior, and environment, and accounts for motivational aspects of per
formance. The tenets of Social Cognitive Theory have guided research across several
functions in HR management (i.e., training and development, performance appraisals,
employee selection, etc.) that occur within an organization, reflecting real-life situa
tions and problems, and has been shown to be highly applicable in employee motiva
tion and commitment contexts (Gibson, 2004).
Fam ily-F rien d ly Em ployee Benefits

FFEBPs are those employee benefits that extend beyond the requirements established
by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The FMLA is legislation affecting
agencies with 50 or more employees and allows employees up to 12 weeks (unpaid)
leave for the birth or placement for adoption or foster care of a child; care of a seri
ously ill child, spouse, or parent; or an employee’s serious illness preventing the
employee from performing the functions of his or her job (Bohlander & Snell, 2004).
Guided by the tenets of the FMLA, researchers have conceptualized FFEBPs into four
categories: dependent care supports (i.e., on-site childcare, after-school/holiday pro
grams, eldercare information or referral, and childcare discounts/vouchers), flexible
work arrangements (i.e., job sharing, flextime, compressed workweek, and telecom
muting), leave programs and time off (i.e., family leave, personal leave of absence,
sabbatical, and leave bank/leave sharing), and work-family stress management (i.e.,
EAPs, health promotion, work-family resource center, support groups, and courses on
life balancing; Johnson, 1995; Mulvaney, 2011). The intent of this study was to extend
upon previous public sector research where dependent care supports programs and
flexible work arrangements were examined (see Mulvaney, 2011) by exploring the
role of the other two FFEBP categories: leave programs and time off benefits and
work-family stress management programs.
Public sector FFEBP research has identified a variety of both utilitarian and altru
istic benefits (Roberts, Gianakis, McCue, & Wang, 2004). Utilitarian benefits identi
fied by FFEBP scholars include reductions in employee (voluntary) turnover (Durst,
1999; Kim & Wiggins, 2011), organizational citizenship behavior (Lambert, 2000),
gaining strategic employee recruitment advantages over competing agencies (Young,
2004), and agency performance (Lee & Hong, 2011). Research examining altruistic
effects of FFEBP has explored quality of life issues for employees (Allen, 2001;
Beauregard & Henry, 2009; Roberts et al., 2004; Straub, 2011). Altruistic benefits of
FFEBPs have also been examined from the employer’s perspective. In a study of city
government HR directors, Wadsworth, Facer, and Arbon (2010) found that directors
perceived the availability of alternate work schedule FFEBP positively contributed to
employee morale and the promotion (by the agency) of employees maintaining a
healthy work-life balance.
In addition to the research mentioned above, job satisfaction has also been a widely
studied variable in the FFEBP research. Saltzstein, Ting, and Saltzsein (2001) exam
ined a variety of FFEBPs (flexible schedule, compressed schedule, part-time schedule,
childcare, work at home on the clock, and organizational understanding) and their
impact on employees’ work-life balance perceptions and overall job satisfaction across
a variety of public sector employees. Their extensive study identified a variety of
FFEBP policies and practices that, despite their diversity, had significant effects on
employees’ satisfaction with work-family balance and overall job satisfaction
(Saltzstein et al., 2001). As research has repeatedly supported the connection between
job satisfaction and employee turnover intentions (see Dong, Mitchell, Lee, Holtom,
& Hinkin, 2012), their findings provided additional support for the utilitarian benefits
offered by FFEBPs.
A more recent study was conducted by Ko, Hur, and Smith-Waiter (2013) who
explored the links between flexible work scheduling and dependent care programs and
job satisfaction and organizational performance. Moderating effects of managerial
support and performance-oriented management were also examined in the study.
Findings from their work suggested that the level of supervisory support moderated
the relationship between job satisfaction and the availability of flexible work schedul
ing and dependent care programs. Interestingly, performance-oriented management
was not a significant moderator among the study’s variables.
The job satisfaction construct has a rich history in the FFEBP literature (see Bohen
& Viveros-Long, 1981; Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Hochschild, 1989; Ko et ah, 2013;
Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Saltzstein et ah, 2001). Recognizing the extensive research on
job satisfaction and FFEBP and in an effort to continue the field’s understanding of
FFEBP in the workplace, this research attempts to explore the effects of two lesser
studied FFEBP areas (leave programs and time off benefits and work-family stress
management programs) on two additional employee behaviors— organizational com
mitment and job self-efficacy. Grounded in the theoretical framework of Social
Cognitive Theory, organizational commitment and job self-efficacy perceptions repre
sent key elements within the reciprocal determinism model (see Bandura, 1991) and
the overall work motivation dynamics (see Caillier, 2012). Thus, research examining
these variables appears to have merit.
Leave Programs and Time O ff Benefits
Leave programs and time off benefits programs are prevalent in today’s workplace
with a recent study indicating nearly 40% of employers in the United States providing
these benefits (Diaz & Wallick, 2009). It is worth noting that these programs are often
a combination of paid and unpaid benefits. For instance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’
2013 Employee Benefits in the United States report indicated while 89% of state and
local government workers had access to paid sick leave, only 59% had access to paid
vacation or personal leave (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
2013). A reasonable amount of disparity also exists between the actual amounts of
leave/time off available to employees. For example, a recent report found that the
M u lv a n e y 463
more generous agencies in the United States offered an average range of 3 to 7 weeks
paid maternity leave, while 38 of 53 countries in Europe and Central Asia provided 26
weeks or more of paid maternity leave (Bernard, 2013). These results indicate that
while a majority of public workers have access to some type of paid leave, the actual
type and volume is varied with workers in the United States receiving significantly
less paid leave time compared with their European counterparts. Some scholars have
also suggested that the absence or limited number of paid leave opportunities diminish
the likelihood employees might utilize these benefits (Galinsky, Sakai, & Wigton,
2011; Paterson, 2013). Primary reasons influencing the reluctance by employees to
use available non-paid leave have centered on financial effects and concerns for “mak
ing up missed work” when returning to the workplace (Galinsky, Sakai, & Wigton,
2011; Paterson, 2013).
The findings above highlight another area of research that has centered on the
potential implementation or barriers associated with utilizing FFEBPs. In their review
of federal agencies, Newman and Mathews (1999) suggested that while many FFEBPs
are available to employees, many of them are underutilized. Newman and Mathews
identified four primary drivers for FFEBP underutilization and barriers for successful
implementation— attitude of management, lack of trust, workaholic culture, and lim
ited communication and training. According to their work, the presence of FFEBPs
alone is not enough; rather, the barriers to their implementation must also be addressed.
Although beyond the scope of this study, additional research investigating the effects
of these barriers is recommended.
Despite their variability within agencies, leave programs and time off benefits pro
grams typically involve one or more of the following benefits: family leave, personal
leave of absence, sabbaticals, and leave bank/leave sharing (Mathis & Jackson, 2011).
Family leave programs generally involve employees receiving time off to care for a
family member, such as a newborn child, an adopted child, a sick child, or a sick rela
tive (Diaz & Wallick, 2009). Although it can vary by agency, oftentimes this is paid
time off from work and extends beyond the employee’s other leave benefits (i.e., sick
leave, personal leave, vacation, etc.). Personal leave of absence is a general purpose
leave that generally allows an employee to be paid while absent from work for a vari
ety of reasons not covered by other leave plans (Diaz & Wallick, 2009). Typically
granted on an annual basis, the amount of personal leave time/days given to an
employee is usually a few days per year. Sabbatical leave is paid time off the job to
develop and rejuvenate oneself (Mathis & Jackson, 2011). Sabbaticals are similar to
personal leave with a few distinct differences. First, sabbaticals are usually longer in
duration ranging from weeks to several months. Second, sabbaticals oftentimes have a
purpose beyond rest and rejuvenation for the employee. In particular, sabbaticals often
require the employee to work on a creative project or task during the time off with pay.
Leave bank/leave sharing programs enable employees the freedom to share their accu
mulated leave time with other employees within the agency (Griffing, 2006). These
leave sharing programs seek to assist employees in a time of need or in managing
significant crises in their lives. Typically, employees self-select to participate in the
program by donating sick or annual leave to either a “leave bank” that is managed by
the employer and can be drawn from by employees in need (some agencies will require
an approval process before granting the leave request) or by donating directly to
another employee with a long-term illness or personal issue who has exhausted his or
her own leave (Griffing, 2006).
Although research on FFEBPs has increased in recent years, much of the work has
focused on the effects of flexible working arrangements and dependent care support
programs (see Caillier, 2012; Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Facer & Wadsworth, 2008;
Mulvaney, 2011; Roberts et al., 2004; Schmidt & Duenas, 2002) with little work
examining leave and time off programs, particularly within the public sector (see
Secret & Swanberg, 2008). O f the research conducted on leave and time off programs,
the results have identified positive effects of these programs on employee morale, job
satisfaction, and perceptions of rejuvenation within their jobs. For instance, Swenty et
al. (2011) completed a quasi meta-analysis of sabbatical research in academic and
health settings and found that the availability of sabbatical leaves in an organization
positively affected employee morale and feelings of rejuvenation in their jobs. Other
studies have focused on health-related benefits associated with the availability of leave
and time off programs. For example, in a review of family-friendly workplace policies
among the world’s most competitive economies, Earle, Mokomane, and Heymann
(2011) identified several health benefits associated with employees and their families
when provided paid parental leave benefits, including healthier infants, more involved
parents in the child’s education, higher probabilities of continued involvement in car
ing for a child, and enhanced social, psychological, behavioral, emotional, and cogni
tive functioning of the employee’s children.
Other research in this area has identified concerns over access to these programs. In
particular, Galinsky, Sakai, and Wigton (2011) reviewed the 2008 National Study of
the Changing Workforce and found that while a majority of workers desired FFEBP,
access to these programs varied, with the positions requiring more education, higher
salaries, and full-time status having greater access to these programs. Despite these
issues o f program access, the results identified several positive benefits associated
with the availability of FFEBP in the workplace, including employee engagement, job
satisfaction, retention, and health (Galinsky, Kelly, & Tyler, 2011).
W o rk-F a m ily Stress M anagem ent Benefits
Johnson (1995) has conceptualized work-family stress management programs into

four benefit categories: EAPs, health promotion, work-family resource center, and
support groups. EAPs represent an organized, professional, counseling and informa
tion providing service on a range of issues, both personal and work-related, either
through telephone/online or face-to-face sessions (Nair & Xavier, 2012). Oftentimes,
EAPs are available for employees and can be utilized on a voluntary or an agency
referral basis with costs associated with the program (i.e., counseling costs, interven
tion costs, travel, etc.) being paid in full or up to a pre-established amount by the
agency. Health promotion programs go beyond the basic provision of healthy working
conditions for employees and include services and programs that facilitate and
M u tva n e y 465
encourage staff to enhance healthy actions and lifestyles (Mathis & Jackson, 2011).
Health promotion programs can vary from health-related informational resources, dis
count memberships to health-related facilities or on-site exercise facilities, to actual
wellness programming delivered by the agency or a partnering organization. Work-
family resource center programs evolved primarily in private agencies before being
introduced to the public sector (see Hutchinson & Nelson, 1985), and include on-site
or referral services for employees seeking to manage the relationships between their
personal/family and workplace roles and responsibilities. Agencies adopting work-
family resource programs will often implement agency policies that help promote and/
or assist their employees in managing their personal and professional lives. Support
group benefits programs seek to bring employees together who have similar concerns
or difficulties and enable employees to share their personal stories and tips and strate
gies for managing these challenges. The specific support group focus can vary depend
ing on the employees and issues (i.e., living with a teenager, domestic violence,
chemical dependency, daycare management, etc.), and most agencies will either pro
vide the resource support for the program in the form of a support leader/counselor and
meeting space or provide financial support for their employees to attend support pro
grams offered by another agency (Messmer, Bragg, & Williams, 2011).
Similar to leave programs and time off, the research on work-family stress man
agement benefits programs is somewhat limited, particularly within the public sector.
Widera, Chang, and Chen (2010) examined the workplace behavior of presenteeism,
or attending work while sick, and found that worksite wellness programs reduced
employee stress levels which contributed to reductions in presenteeism by employees
and higher levels of staff morale. Other research has identified the profitability of
health promotion programs for the employer as the savings obtained in employee
health care costs outweighed costs associated with the cost of the specific health pro
motion programs (Broughton, Scheunemann, Lee, & Payne, 2013). Guided by the
potential cost savings associated with work-family stress management programs, in
general, and health promotion programs, in particular, Seaverson, Grossmeier, Miller,
and Anderson (2009) found several employers were increasingly using financial
incentives to encourage employee participation in worksite health promotion pro
grams resulting in higher employee participation levels in the programs and employee
program completion rates. Other research on another work-family stress management
programs has examined their role in employee turnover intentions. In a study of nurs
ing professionals, Messmer et al. (2011) found that employee turnover rates decreased
steadily over a 3-year period in which a peer support program benefit was organized
and implemented by the employer.
Researchers have also called for additional exploration of work-family stress man
agement programs. For example, Kahnweiler and Riordan (1998) reviewed the litera
ture on employee support group benefits programs and found a significant variation in
specific support group purposes, formats, and intended employer outcomes.
Kahnweiler and Riordan conclusions suggested that while support group benefits pro
grams are increasing in the American workplace, many of these support group pro
grams offered by agencies were “works in progress” with the literature being more
descriptive than evaluative. Consistent with these Kahnweiler and Riordan’s employee
support group findings, research on EAPs has also primarily focused on the design and
implementation aspects of these programs with little attention given to the impact of
these programs (see Walker & Hanson, 1992; Wegener, 1992). There appear to be a
general consensus that while EAPs represent a proactive, strategic, and cost-effective
mechanism for resolving workplace and work-life issues that may inhibit employee
contributions, productivity, and job satisfaction, there is a limited amount of empirical
research documenting the specific effects of these programs in the United States with
most of the employee outcome-based research being conducted in other countries
(Association for the Study of Higher Education, 2012). For example, Csiemik, Chaulk,
and McQuaid (2012) conducted a descriptive study of a Canadian Public Service EAP
and found that the program was perceived by employees to be appropriately integrated
into the agency, well utilized, and yielded high user satisfaction ratings.
Given the somewhat limited and varied research on leave and time off programs
and work-family stress management programs, theoretically grounded research in the
public sector appears to have merit. Guided by Social Cognitive Theory and the previ
ous research on FFEBP, in general, and leave and time off programs and work-family
stress management programs, in particular, this study seeks to examine effects of these
programs on organizational commitment and employee self-efficacy among a sector
of municipal employees. An overview of the proposed framework is provided in the
following paragraphs.
T h e o r e tic a l F r a m e w o r k
Social Cognitive Theory centers on the cognitive concepts associated with an employee’s
behavior (Bandura, 1986). Representing a key tenet to Social Cognitive Theory is recip
rocal determinism, which takes into account the behavior, the individual, and the environ
ment in which the individual operates (Gibson, 2004). Employee actions are influenced
and driven by the ongoing interactions associated with the work environment, their
behaviors, and the employee—with each influencing and being influenced by the other
(Gibson, 2004). Labeled as “triadic reciprocity,” this series of interactions (behavior,
work environment, and employee) have been represented as a triangle with each factor
bi-directionally influencing the others. As Davis and Luthans (1980) explained, “Social
learning posits that the person and environment do not function as independent units but
instead determine each other in a reciprocal manner” (Ginter & White, 1982, p. 298).
Martin (2004) further explained the reciprocal manner in which the employee operates:
With respect to how the self is understood and functions, Bandura rejects any dualism
that might separate self as agent from self as object. Maintaining that social cognitive
theory is committed to a wholistic conception of selfhood, Bandura maintains that one is
just as much an agent when reflecting on one’s experience as when executing a particular
course of action. At a more macroscopic level of analysis, Bandura’s conception of
agency operates within an interdependent causal model that he called “triadic reciprocal
causation (Bandura, 1986). In this model of self and society, internal personal factors
(cognitive, affective, biological events), behavior and environmental factors operate as
interacting determinants that influence each other bi-directionally, (p. 138)
M u lv a n e y 467
Martin’s (2004) comments suggest that employees are both producers and products
of social systems, and these social structures are established by human activity. In
addition, social structures can also create constraints and/or provide resources for per
sonal development and everyday functioning. Bandura (1997) also suggests that struc
tural constraints or enabling resources predetermine what individuals become and do
in given situations. Rather, the employee is influenced by him or herself and operates
generatively and proactively, not just reactively, to shape the character of their social
systems (Bandura, 1997). Guided by these tenets, Social Cognitive Theory suggests
that employee is socially founded, but is also an active agent in his or her
environment.
Guided by these principles of Social Cognitive Theory, Schunk (1999) reviewed
the relevant literature and proposed a model that sought to identify predominant influ
ences (i.e., variables) within the three areas of Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocity.
Schunk (1999) suggested that the environmental factors (i.e., presence of FFEBP)
affect many individual variables, such as the employee’s attributions (i.e., organiza
tional commitment). Achievement outcomes such as motivational behaviors (i.e., job
self-efficacy) are also affected by social and individual influences (Schunk, 1999).
Responding to Schunk’s (1999) work and in relation to the current study of FFEBP,
organizational commitment appears to have merit as an individual attribute worthy of
investigation. Organizational commitment is a workplace attitude that describes the
psychological attachment between an individual employee and their employing orga
nization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Researchers have conceptualized a com
mitted employee as “one who will stay with the organization through thick and thin,
attends work regularly, puts in a full day (and maybe more), protects company assets,
and who shares company goals” (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p. 3). The extensive research
on organizational commitment has identified high levels of organizational commit
ment to be associated with low turnover, limited tardiness, low absenteeism, and in
some situations, enhanced job performance (Bartlett & McKinney, 2004; Jaros, 1997;
Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mowday et al., 1979). When exploring the association between
organizational commitment and FFEBPs, Social Cognitive Theory’s reciprocal deter
minism would suggest that if employees perceive that they are being cared for through
the provision of FFEBPs, the more likely employees are to feel obligated to “give
back” or respond by displaying more commitment to the agency. Thus,
Hypothesis la: Municipal employees who perceive the availability of leave pro
grams and time off FFEBP within their agency will have higher levels of organiza
tional commitment compared with municipal employees who do not perceive the
availability of leave programs and time off FFEBP within their agency.
Hypothesis lb: Municipal employees who perceive the availability of work-fam
ily stress management FFEBP within their agency will have higher levels of orga
nizational commitment compared with municipal employees who do not perceive
the availability of work-family stress management FFEBP within their agency.
When exploring the achievement/behavior outcomes within Social Cognitive

Theory’s reciprocal determinism model, job self-efficacy appears to have merit.
Self-efficacy is conceptualized in Social Cognitive Theory as individuals’ beliefs in

their capability to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of
action needed to exercise control over events in their lives (Harrison, Rainer,
Hochwarter, & Thompson, 1997; Martocchio & Webster, 1992; Wood & Bandura,
1989). Self-efficacy research has identified three elements associated with the con
struct (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Wood & Bandura, 1989). First, self-efficacy repre
sents a comprehensive summary or judgment of perceived capability for performing
a specific job (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Applied in a HR management framework, an
individual’s self-efficacy perceptions and overall assessment of his or her capabili
ties would be influenced by information derived from the individual, the job, and
others in the work environment. Second, self-efficacy is a dynamic construct as an
individual’s judgment changes over time as new information and experience are
acquired (sometimes during actual task performance; Gist & Mitchell, 1992). In
describing the third element of the self-efficacy construct, Bandura (1991) suggested
that self-efficacy is more than an inert estimate of future action; rather, it involves a
generative capability by which resources and skills are coordinated into successful
performance (Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991). This is supported by extensive
research, indicating that the self-efficacy construct has served as a primary determi
nant of task-motivated behavior and performance (Bandura, 1997; Gist et al., 1991;
Harrison et al., 1997; Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995; Mitchell, Hopper, Daniels,
George-Falvy, & James, 1994; Mulvaney, 2011; Saks, 1995). Research has also
found self-efficacy to be a significant factor in goal setting (Latham & Frayne,
1989), self-regulation (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), attainment of training goals
(Martocchio, 1994), and has an overall high degree o f importance as a basic element
of individual behavior and attitudes in the work environment (Bandura, 1997).
Overall, the research has found that self-efficacy accounts for a significant portion
o f variance in performance after controlling for ability (Harrison et al., 1997).
Researchers have suggested that human behavior and one’s self-efficacy are regu
lated by the ongoing exercise of self-influence (Bandura, 1997; Gist et al., 1991). In
particular, self-efficacy is influenced by an individual’s forethoughts and perceptions
about their abilities and recognition of the possible consequences of their actions, lead
ing to the establishment of personal goals and plans to assist in achieving those goals
(Bandura, 1986). Referred to as self-regulation, Bandura (1991) asserted that individuals
must reflect on their own performance, the performance environment, and the short- and
long-term effects of their performance to fully regulate their own motivation and actions.
Thus, self-monitoring represents a critical element in the success of one’s self-regulation
(Bandura, 1991). Observing one’s pattern of behavior is the first step toward doing
something to affect it, but, in itself, such information provides little basis for self-directed
reactions (Bandura, 1991). Rather, Bandura contended that one’s judgmental function
connects the observations to one’s self-reaction. These judgment patterns one subscribes
to are influenced primarily by their personal standards, which are developed based on
three factors: social referential comparisons, valuation of activities, and perceived per
formance determinants (Bandura, 1997). Social referential comparison is based upon the
evaluation of one’s performance in relation to the performance of others. Valuation of
activities centers on the varying levels of importance (or value) on activities based on
M u lv a n e y 469
their perceived significance to the individual. Anticipated self-reactions are influenced

by an individual’s internalized performance standards (i.e., self-monitoring and judg
ment of one’s behavior). Taken collectively, these judgment patterns influence one’s
self-efficacy perceptions and future performance (Bandura, 1997).
Social Cognitive Theory would suggest that if employees believe that they are
being pulled away from work-related responsibilities due to personal reasons, such as
caring for a sick family member or dealing with health and/or wellness issues, they are
more likely to perceive their job performance at lower standard in comparison with
employees without significant personal responsibilities. In particular, employees con
fronted with substantial personal or family responsibilities and struggle to sustain the
workload schedule of their co-workers are likely to perceive their performance as
below standard. These lower self-evaluations of job performance will likely lead to
negative self-efficacy perceptions (Bandura, 1997). Thus,
Hypothesis 2a: Municipal employees who perceive the availability of leave pro
grams and time off FFEBP within their agency will have higher levels of job self-
efficacy compared with municipal employees who do not perceive the availability
of leave programs and time off FFEBP within their agency.
Hypothesis 2b: Municipal employees who perceive the availability of work-fam
ily stress management FFEBP within their agency will have higher levels of job
self-efficacy compared with municipal employees who do not perceive the avail
ability of work-family stress management FFEBP within their agency.
M e th o d
S am ple
Municipal employees working for local city government were selected for the study’s
sample. In particular, participants for the study were selected from the complete mem
bership database of the Illinois Park and Recreation Association (IPRA). The IPRA
membership database contained 1,708 professionals from more than 340 public park
and recreation agencies within the state of Illinois. The entire 1,708 professionals were
included in the study with an online survey being utilized to measure all of the study
variables. The instruments used to measure the study variables along with the data
collection procedures are provided in the following paragraphs.
FFEBP
Drawing from Johnson’s (1995) conceptual model of FFEBP, eight FFEBPs were
measured. An overview of each benefit category and the measurement instruments is
provided in the following paragraphs.
Leave p ro g ra m s a n d tim e o ff. Johnson’s (1995) work has identified four FFEBs within
the leave programs and time off category. The four FFEBPs included family leave
beyond that required by law, personal leave of absence, sabbatical, and leave bank/
470 Public Personnel M anagem ent 43(4 )
T a b le I. Leave P ro g ra m s and W o rk - F a m ily S tress M a n a g e m e n t In s tru m e n t.
A lis t o f e m p lo y e e b e n e fits a re p ro v id e d b e lo w . W h ic h o f t h e fo llo w in g e m p lo y e e b e n e fits

do e s y o u r agency p ro v id e t o its e m p lo y e e s (s e le c t all th a t apply)?
A v a ila b le a t
E m p lo y e e b e n e fit y o u r agency
Leave p ro g ra m s and tim e o f f b e n e fits

F am ily leave b e y o n d th a t re q u ire d by la w (i.e., tim e t o c a re f o r a fa m ily
m e m b e r)
P erso na l leave o f absence (i.e., any tim e o f f th a t is g ra n te d f o r reasons,
in c lu d in g spe cia lize d e x p e rie n c e s , fa m ily issues, and e x te n u a tin g pe rso n a l
needs)
S abbatical (i.e., a p p ro v e d leave f o r an e x te n d e d p e rio d o f tim e )
Leave b a n k/le a ve s h a rin g (i.e., s h a rin g a c c u m u la te d leave tim e w ith o th e r
e m p lo y e e s )
W o r k - f a m ily s tre s s m a n a g e m e n t b e n e fits
E m p lo y e e assistance p ro g ra m s (i.e., p ro fe s s io n a l, c o u n s e lin g and in fo rm a tio n
p ro v id in g s e rv ic e )
H e a lth p r o m o tio n p ro g ra m s (i.e., d is c o u n te d h e a lth /fitn e s s fa c ility
m e m b e rs h ip , w e lln e s s p ro g ra m m in g p ro v id e d by agency, e tc.)
W o r k - f a m ily re s o u rc e p ro g ra m s (i.e., o n -s ite re fe rra l se rvice s o r p ro g ra m s
assisting e m p lo y e e s m anage w o r k - fa m ily life re la tio n s h ip )
S u p p o rt g ro u p p ro g ra m s (i.e., s u p p o r t p ro g ra m s f o r issues such as d o m e s tic
v io le n c e , c h e m ic a l d e p e n d e n c y , d a ycare m an ag em en t, and livin g w ith a
te e n a g e r)
leave sharing (Johnson, 1995). Respondents were provided a list of four leave and
time off benefits and asked to identify which of the following employee benefits their
agency provided to its employees (see Table 1). Consistent with previous research, a
brief description of each FFEBP was provided to assist each respondent in accurately
completing the items (Wang & Walumbwa, 2007).
W o r k -fa m ily stress m an ag em en t. Research on FFEBP has identified four work-family

stress management benefits programs: EAPs, health promotion programs, work-fam
ily resource center programs, and support group programs (Johnson, 1995). Respon
dents were provided a list of the four work-family stress management benefits and
asked to identify which of the following employee benefits their agency provided to
its employees (see Table 1). Consistent with previous research, a brief description of
each FFEBP was provided to assist each respondent in accurately completing the
items (Wang & Walumbwa, 2007).
Job self-e fficacy beliefs. Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, and Hooker’s (1994)
10-item job self-efficacy scale used to measure participants’ job self-efficacy. The
10-item instrument scored items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
M u lv a n e y 471
T a b le 2. Job Self-Efficacy Instrument.
Think about your ability to do the tasks required by your job. W hen answering the
following questions, answer in reference to your own personal w o rk skills and ability to
perform the job.
Strongly Strongly
Statement agree Agree Undecided Disagree disagree
I have confidence in my ability to do

my job.
There are some tasks required fo r my
job that I cannot do well.
W hen my performance is poor, it is
due to my lack o f ability.
I doubt my ability to do my job.
I have all the skills needed to perform
my job very well.
Most people in my line o f w o rk can do
this job better than I can.
I am an expert at my job.
My future in this job is limited because
o f my lack o f skills.
I am very proud o f my job skills and
abilities.
I feel threatened when others watch
me w ork.
to 5 (strongly agree; see Table 2). The 10-item scale has shown acceptable internal
consistency reliability in previous research on public sector employees (a = .85).
The participants’ commitment to their agencies was mea

O rg a n iz a tio n a l co m m itm e n t.
sured using the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). Research with
similar public sector populations has supported the improved reliability of the 9-item
OCQ (a=.90) compared with the original 15-item OCQ (a = .88; Bartlett & McKin
ney, 2004). Guided by these findings, the 9-item OCQ was utilized for the current
study (see Table 3). The 9 items on the OCQ were measured on a 7-point Likert-type
scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) providing a composite indicator of
employee organizational commitment (Bartlett & McKinney, 2004).
D e m o g ra p h ic variables. Information on six demographic variables was collected:

gender, marital/couple household status, household income, household employment
status (single vs. dual income household), do you have children, and years employed
with current agency. Each of these variables was measured using a single item. To
test the hypotheses of interest, response categories for the household employment
status were dichotomized. Specifically, the original response categories for
T a b le 3. O rganizational C o m m itm e n t Instrum ent.
W h a t is y o u r a ttitu d e to w a rd y o u r jo b and agency? Please indicate y o u r level o f agreem ent fo r each o f the fo llo w in g
statem ents.
Strongly M oderately Slightly Slightly M oderately Strongly

S tatem ent agree agree agree U ndecided disagree disagree disagree
I am w illin g to p ut a great deal o f e ffo rt

beyond th a t n orm ally expected to help
this organization be successful.
I ta lk up this organization to my friends
as a great organization to w o r k fo r.
I w ou ld accept alm ost any type o f job
assignment to keep w o rk in g fo r this
organization.
I find th a t my values and the
organization’s values are ve ry similar.
I am p rou d to te ll o th e rs th a t I am a p art
o f this organization.
This organization really inspires the
ve ry best in me in th e w ay o f job
perform ance.
I am e xtre m ely glad th a t I chose this
organization to w o r k fo r o v e r others I
was considering a t th e tim e I joined.
I really care abo u t this organization.
F o r me, this is the best o f all possible
organizations fo r w hich to w o rk .
household employment status (single, one income; married/couple, one income; and
married couple/dual incomes) were consolidated into two categories— single income
or dual income.
D a t a C o lle c tio n a n d P r o c e d u re s
An email invitation to participate in the study was sent to each of the 1,708 park and
recreation professionals within IPRA’s membership database. The email invitation
included a description of the study and a link to the online survey which was created
using a well-known online survey development tool, Survey Methods. All of the study
variables of interest (leave programs and time off benefits, work-family stress man
agement benefits, job self-efficacy beliefs, organizational commitment, and demo
graphic variables) were measured using the online survey.
Guided by Dillman’s (2000) work with survey research, a series of reminders were
sent to the participants. First, a reminder email with a link to the survey was sent 1
week after the initial email was submitted. Fourteen days after the initial invitation
email, a second personalized reminder email was sent to participants who had not
completed the survey. Finally, a third reminder email was sent to all non-respondents
5 days before the deadline. These procedures employed yielded a 20% response rate
(n = 347). Demographic characteristics of the respondents are provided in Table 4.
Mulvaney 473
T a b le 4 . D escrip tive Statistics fo r th e T o ta l Sample.
Variable n %
A . Sample frequencies
G e nder
Male 124 35.7
Female 223 64.3
H ousehold status
Single, no children 65 18.8
M a rrie d /co u p le , no children 59 17.1
Single, w ith children 32 9.2
M a rrie d /co u p le , w ith children 190 54.9
H ousehold incom e
U p to US$34,999 19 5.6
US$35,000 to US$74,999 85 25.1
US$75,000 to US$99,999 89 26.3
US$100,000 to US$149,999 96 28.4
US$150,000 to US$199,999 42 12.4
US$200,000 o r m o re 7 2.1
H ousehold e m p lo ym e n t status
Single, one incom e 91 26.4
M a rrie d /co u p le , one incom e 18 5.2
M a rrie d /co u p le , dual incomes 233 67.5
O th e r 3 0.9
Job p osition
E ntry level p osition (0-5 yrs exp.) 48 13.8
M id level su p ervisor (5-10 yrs exp) 115 33.1
U p p e r level management (+10 yrs exp) 107 30.8
Executive level p osition (+ 10 yrs exp) 77 22.2
D o you have children?
Yes 222 64.2
No 124 35.8
Single vs. dual incom e
Single incom e 109 31.9
Dual incom e 233 68.1
Variable M SD
B. Sample mean and standard deviation

H o w many years have you w o rk e d fo r 10.9 8.65
this agency?
Brief phone interviews were conducted with 25 of the non-respondents in an effort to

address the potential for non-response bias. During the phone interviews, non-respon
dents were asked a series of both demographic (gender, employment status, and years
employed with the agency) and job-related questions (availability of FFEBPs at their
agency and job self-efficacy) representing an abbreviated version of the items on the
questionnaire. Little difference was found between the respondents and non-respondents,
providing further support for the generalizability of the study’s findings.
D ata Analysis
Initial analyses included examining the data for (a) missing values; (b) multivariate
outliers; (c) linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity; and (d) multicollinearity issues
among the study’s independent variables. Boxplots were computed and reviewed to
identify possible outliers within the data set. Mahalanobis distance statistics were also
calculated in an effort to provide a more precise identification of outliers in the sam
ple, particularly given that statisticians have suggested multiple regression sensitivity
to extreme cases (see Stevens, 2001). Linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity
issues were assessed through the examination of the residuals scatterplots as well as
measures of skewness and kurtosis statistics. Internal consistency measures were also
calculated for job self-efficacy beliefs and organizational commitment. In addressing
multicollinearity concerns, tolerance statistics and intercorrelations were performed
among the study variables. The results of these analyses were used to guide subse
quent statistical analyses in determining the support (or lack of) for the study
hypotheses.
Hierarchical regression analyses were computed to test the study hypotheses.
Hierarchical regression analyses were used in an effort to obtain a more precise esti
mate of the amount of variance accounted for by the two types of FFEBPs on job self-
efficacy and organizational commitment after partialling out the individual
characteristics of the participants. The individual characteristic variables (sex, marital/
couple status, household income, years worked with current agency, do you have chil
dren, and single vs. dual income) were specified as the first block of predictor vari
ables in the regression analysis and the availability of FFEBP within the agency
comprised the second block. Categorical variables were dummy-coded in all of the
regression analyses.
R e s u lts
Preliminary Analyses
Data were examined for data entry accuracy, missing values, and potential outliers.
Initial procedures utilized were bivariate scatterplots, Mahalanobis distance, and gen
eral missing value analyses. Eleven cases were identified as outliers or contained
incomplete surveys. These cases were removed from subsequent analyses. Skewness
and kurtosis statistics were calculated to assess the normality of the organizational
commitment and job self-efficacy variables, yielding skewness measures o f -.78
( S E - .13; job self-efficacy) and -.83 (SE = .12; organizational commitment) and kur
tosis values of .53 (SE = .26; job self-efficacy) and .85 (SE = .26; organizational
M u lv a n e y 475
commitment). Work by Mertler and Vannatta (2010) suggests that both skewness and
kurtosis measures were within acceptable ranges.
Reliability measures were obtained for job self-efficacy and organizational com
mitment. An alpha coefficient of .80 was obtained for the job self-efficacy instrument
with the study participants, while the organizational commitment instrument yielded
an alpha coefficient of .94. Additional analyses were conducted to explore individual
changes in alpha levels should each item be deleted.
Next, the study’s dependent variables underwent tests for linearity and homosce-
dasticity. In particular, linear regression analyses were performed that compared the
standardized residuals with the predicted values of organizational commitment and
job self-efficacy (Mertler & Vannatta, 2010). These analyses resulted in plots that
were rectangular-shaped distributions with a concentration of values along the center
of the plot, suggesting that the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity were
met for organizational commitment and job self-efficacy.
To explore potential multicollinearity issues, tolerance and correlation statistics
were obtained for each of the study’s 14 independent variables. Tolerance statistics
obtained ranged from .96 (sabbatical leave FFEBP) to .22 (household income) and
were all above the 0.1 cutoff (see Norusis, 1998), suggesting the absence of multicol
linearity. Next, correlation statistics were calculated for the study variables. This pro
cedure resulted in several significant correlations (see Table 5). A further inspection of
the individual variable correlations suggests that many agencies providing FFEBPs
tend to provide more than one specific option within their leave and time off benefits
program and/or work-family stress management program. Although several signifi
cant correlations were found among the study variables, statisticians recommend
addressing multicollinearity issues only when variables have intercorrelations of .80
or higher (Stevens, 2001). As a result, none of the study variables were deleted or
combined prior to subsequent analyses.
O rg a n iza tio n a l C o m m itm e n t and FFEBP
A major research question of the study investigated the extent to which the availability
of leave programs and time off and work-family stress management FFEBPs would
affect municipal employees’ organizational commitment (Flypotheses la & 2a).
Hierarchical regression analyses were computed to test Hypotheses la and lb, and the
results are presented in Tables 6 and 7. The first block of the regression analysis,
employee characteristics, accounted for 11% of the variance in organizational com
mitment values and was a significant predictor, F(6, 266) = 5.27, R2 = .11, p < .05.
Closer examination identified years worked for the agency to be the most significant
contributor to organizational commitment perceptions. In particular, employees with
more years in the agency display higher commitment levels compared with employees
with fewer years with the agency.
The four leave and time off FFEBPs were included in the second block of the
regression analysis. Results found that, collectively, leave and time off FFEBPs did
significantly contribute to the regression equation (F change = 3.59, R2 change = .01,
vO
LO
■N" N-
1 —; p
*
ro O L O ON
[ rN O p
CN * *
o N- o
—; (N rN p
* * * * *
1 00 LO rN N"
1 ro — . rN ro L O
* * 4f * *
o ON o — ro T rN
rN o ; CX NO
1
f
*
rN 00 ro LO 00 o
on 0 0 O o 0
1
1 1 1 1 r
* * * * *
ON — ON LO ON o
oo 0 o
1 1
aC o d e : 0 = FFEBP n o t a v a ila b le w it h in e m p lo y e e ’s a g e n c y ; I = FFEBP a v a ila b le w it h in e m p lo y e e ’s ag e n c y .

* * *
rN NO LO LO LO
<N o O 0 0 rN 0 o
1
l 1 1 1 1 1
* * * *
00 LO NO nO LO ON —
NO p rN o 0 o rN o o
1
1 ~ 1 r
* * * * *
o rN ro 00 00 LO rN LO LO 00 LO
LO O o o <N rN o o o
1 “
r
*
to 00 LO NO CN| ON ON o LO LO o ro
N- o 0 O o o o o o o p
1
*
‘‘C o d e : 0 = s in g le in c o m e h o u s e h o ld ; I = d u a l in c o m e h o u s e h o ld .
> n - ro rN NO ro rN rN NO 00 o
m > o O o o O O o o o o O
1 ~
* * * * *
ON 0 0> ON LO ro ON — cn 00 o o n- ON rN
rN o o> o O o o o
~
T a b le 5. Intercorrelations o f Study Variables.
1
* * —
00 Tf ) LO nO 00 VO LO N- ro rN N" N- rN
(N O )o O O —; —; o o o o O o O
£ L.
bC o d e : 0 = s in g le ; I = m a r r ie d /c o u p le .
= « 2
2 E c
txo n <d
O u
fe. p «
u
c
*-> u
c CD
CD Q_
to
Z3
CD E CD E
U W CD bp
E L_
c C o
<3 .2
S E 0 u
'C o d e : 0 = n o ; I = ye s.
to _c c
01 00 £
o CD
o
u _
M > cr1 oo X CD rJ C <D 03
a> os ^ n Q- u
O
D
> cd 00 ZJ " O "O
n3 — CD E 0 € IS
CD M O O CD fjj
-C
II
« rt
!nj I<D o'-g i m
t
o
^ _C
CD
£
CD
N
C O o_
7^ O J3 to to
03 X (D CO
Q) jO > Q- ~S o
O O. uv tXO
X) r3 Jr CL X 03
.05 .
-O <D E " > 0 - 3 0) rc3 O -Q

_o^
o
tO — I LU I > to to L i > - 0 o to
's_
*p <
— rN ro N- LO NO h*. d - rN ro LO NO
>
476
M u lv a n e y 477
T a b le 6 . H ie ra rc h ic a l L in e a r R egre ssion A n a lysis S u m m a ry T a b le f o r O rg a n iz a tio n a l

C o m m itm e n t and Leave and T im e O ff FFEBP.
B lo c k V a ria b le R2 AR2 F p B SE T P
1 Sex - 1 .0 8 1.17 -0 .9 3 .36
1 M a rita l/c o u p le s ta tu s -5 .3 4 3.68 - 1 .4 5 .15
1 H o u s e h o ld in c o m e 1.75 0 .6 4 0.83 .41
1 Y ea rs w o r k e d w /a g e n c y 0.20 0.08 2.63 .00
1 D o y o u have c h ild re n 12.75 7.71 1.65 .10
1 Single vs. dual in c o m e .11 .11 5.27 .00 1.52 1.82 0.833 .41
2 F am ily leave 0.16 1.50 0.10 .92
2 P erso na l leave o f absence 2.1 8 1.29 1.69 .09
2 Sabbatical 1.35 3.04 0.44 .66
2 Leave b a n k/le a ve sh a rin g . 12 .01 3.59 .00 1.32 2.10 0.63 .53
Note. FFEBP = fam ily-friendly employee benefits program.
T a b le 7 . H ie ra rc h ic a l L in e a r R e gre ssion A n a lysis S u m m a ry T a b le f o r O rg a n iz a tio n a l

C o m m itm e n t and W o r k - F a m ily S tress M a n a g e m e n t FFEBP.
B lo c k V a ria b le R2 AR2 F p B SE T P
1 Sex - 1 .0 8 1.17 -0 .9 3 .36
1 M a rita l/c o u p le status - 5 .3 4 3.68 - 1 .4 5 .15
1 H o u s e h o ld in c o m e 1.75 0.6 4 0.83 .41
1 Y e a rs w o r k e d w /a g e n c y 0.20 0.0 8 2.63 .00
1 D o y o u have c h ild re n 12.75 7.71 1.65 .10
1 Single vs. dual in c o m e II .11 5 .2 7 .00 1.52 1.82 0.833 .41
2 E m p lo y e e assistance - 0 .2 8 1.57 - 0 .1 8 .86
p ro g ra m s
2 H e a lth p r o m o tio n p ro g ra m s 1.60 1.37 1.17 .24
2 W o r k - f a m ily re s o u rc e c e n te r 6.33 1.92 3.29 .00

2 S u p p o rt g ro u p s .15 .04 4 .7 0 .00 0.54 1.89 0.29 .78
Note. FFEBP = family-friendly employee benefits program.
p < .05). Although individual-level inspection of the four leave and time off FFEBPs
was not significant, personal leave of absence benefits was the primary contributor to
the block’s overall significance. Thus, Flypothesis la was partially supported.
Hypothesis lb predicted that municipal employees working for agencies with
work-family stress management FFEBPs have higher levels of organizational com
mitment than professionals working for agencies without work-family stress manage
ment FFEBPs. The results of the regression analysis found that the availability of
work-family stress management FFEBPs in an agency was a significant predictor and
accounted for an additional 4% of the variance in organizational commitment scores
(F change = 4.70, R2 change = .04, p < .05; Table 7). A further inspection identified
T a b le 8 . H ierarchical Linear Regression Analysis Summary Table fo r Job Self-Efficacy and

Leave and T im e O ff FFEBP.
Variable R2 AR2 F P B SE T P
1 Sex 0.10 0.63 0.15 .88
1 M a rita l/co u ple status 0.27 1.89 0.14 .89
1 H ousehold incom e 0.55 0.33 1.66 .10
1 Years w o rk e d w/agency 0.04 0.04 1.06 .29
1 D o you have children 0.08 0.94 0.09 .93
1 Single vs. dual incom e .04 .04 1.59 .15 -1 .7 5 3.96 -0 .4 4 .66
2 Family leave 0.68 0.78 0.87 .39
2 Personal leave o f absence -0 .5 5 0.67 -0 .8 3 .41
2 Sabbatical 1.54 1.65 0.93 .35
2 Leave bank/leave sharing .04 .00 1.17 .31 0.41 1.09 0.38 .71
Note. FFEBP = fam ily-friendly employee benefits program.
health promotion programs as a stronger predictor of professionals’ organizational

commitment than EAPs, work-family resource center programs, and support groups.
These findings provide support for Hypothesis lb, suggesting that municipal employ
ees who work for agencies that provide work-family stress management FFEBPs have
higher levels of organizational commitment compared with employees working for
agencies without these programs.
Job Self-Efficacy a n d FFEBP

In addition to organizational commitment, this study sought to examine the effects of
the provision of leave programs and time off and work-family stress management
FFEBPs on employees’ job self-efficacy (Hypotheses 2a & 2b). Hierarchical regres
sion analyses were also computed to test Hypotheses 2a and 2b, and the results are
presented in Tables 8 and 9. The first block of the regression analysis, employee char
acteristics, only accounted for 4% of the variance in job self-efficacy scores and were
not found to be significant contributor to the prediction of the employees’ job self-
efficacy, F(6, 264) = 1.59, R2 = .04 p > .05). Additional examination of the regression
analysis also indicated that leave and time off FFEBs were not significant predictors
of job self-efficacy perceptions after partialling out employee characteristics
(F change = 1.17, R2 change = .00, p> .05). Individual inspection of the four leave and
time off FFEBPs was also not significant. Thus, Hypothesis 2a was not supported.
Hypothesis 2b predicted that professionals working for agencies with work-family
stress management FFEBPs would have higher job self-efficacy perceptions than
municipal employees working for agencies without work-family stress management
FFEBPs. According to the results, the four work-family stress management FFEBPs
did significantly contribute to the regression equation (F change = 4.58, R2 change =
.11 , p < .05). Of the four work-family stress management FFEBPs, health promotion
Mulvaney 479
Table 9. Hierarchical Linear Regression Analysis Summary Table fo r Job Self-Efficacy and
W ork-F am ily Stress Management FFEBP.
Block Variable R2 AR2 F P B SE T P

1 Sex 0.10 0.63 0.15 .88
1 Marital/couple status 0.27 1.89 0.14 .89
1 Household income 0.55 0.33 1.66 .10
1 Years worked w/agency 0.04 0.04 1.06 .29
1 Do you have children 0.08 0.94 0.09 .93
1 Single vs. dual income .04 .04 1.59 .15 -1.75 3.96 -0.44 .66
2 Employee assistance -1.44 0.78 -1.84 .07
programs
2 Health prom otion programs 2.85 0.69 4.14 .00
2 W o rk-fa m ily resource 3.47 0.95 3.64 .00
center
2 Support groups .15 .1 1 4.58 .00 0.38 0.94 0.41 .69
Note. FFEBP = family-friendly employee benefits program.
programs and work-family resource center programs were stronger predictors of job
self-efficacy perceptions compared with EAPs or support groups. These findings pro
vide support for Hypothesis 2b.
D is c u s s io n
Social Cognitive Theory’s reciprocal determinism served as the theoretical frame

work for this study on FFEBPs of public sector professionals. In particular, the links
between the availability of FFEBPs and organizational commitment and job self-
efficacy were explored. Social Cognitive Theory’s triadic reciprocity asserts that the
presence of FFEBPs affects several individual-level variables, such as an employee’s
organizational commitment (Bandura, 1997). In addition, achievement-level out
comes, such as job self-efficacy, are also influenced by social and individual influ
ences (Schunk, 1999).
In conceptualizing FFEBPs, Johnson (1995) organized these benefits into four cat
egories: dependent care supports, flexible work arrangements, leave programs and
time off, and work-family stress management. O f these four benefits categories, con
siderable more research has focused on flexible working arrangements and dependent
care supports (see Caillier, 2012; Ezra & Deckman, 1996; Facer & Wadsworth, 2008;
Mulvaney, 2011; Roberts et al., 2004; Schmidt & Duenas, 2002) compared with leave
and time off programs or work-family stress management benefits programs within
public sector environments (see Secret & Swanberg, 2008). As a result of this limited
research on leave and time off programs and work-family stress management pro
grams, this study sought to explore these two benefits categories through a theoreti
cally grounded research lens.
The study’s first hypotheses predicted that the availability of leave programs and
time off and work-family stress management FFEBPs would have positive effects on
an employee’s organizational commitment. These hypotheses were supported by the
study’s results indicating that public sector employees working for agencies with leave
programs and time off (family leave, personal leave of absence, sabbaticals, or leave
bank/sharing) and/or work-family stress management (EAPs, health promotion pro
grams, work-family resource center programs, or support groups) FFEBPs did have
higher levels of organization commitment compared with employees working for
agencies without these benefits. When examining the individual-level impacts of these
FFEBPs, work-family resource center programs were the only statistically significant
predictors of an employee’s organization commitment.
Hypothesis 2 examined the effects of leave programs and time off and work-family
stress management FFEBPs on employees’job self-efficacy. The results indicated that
leave and time off programs were not found to significantly contribute to employees’
job self-efficacy after partialling out individual-level characteristics of sex, household
income, marital/couple status, years employed by the agency, number of children, and
single versus dual income household. Consistent with Hypothesis lb, regression anal
yses did find significant differences in the job self-efficacy levels of employees work
ing for an agency with work-family stress management FFEBPs compared with
employees working for agencies without these benefits. O f the four work-family
stress management FFEBPs, health promotion programs were found to be the stron
gest predictors of an employee’s organizational commitment.
When examining these results within the context of the study’s sample, several pos
sible explanations emerge. One possible explanation might be found on the diverse
quality of the FFEBPs provided by the public agencies. In particular, the study exam
ined public park and recreation professionals as a sample of employees within a
municipal setting. Oftentimes, these professionals are responsible for effectively man
aging a community’s parks, facilities, and programs (Mulvaney & Hurd, 2012). Thus,
a significant service area within these agencies is programming with staff and admin
istration being well versed in the assessment, development, design, implementation,
and evaluation of programs. Two of the stronger predictors of job self-efficacy and
organizational commitment within the work-family stress management were health
promotion programs and work-family resource center programs. Both of these FFEBP
areas are closely aligned with many public park and recreation mission statements that
center on quality of life issues and represent programming areas that are very familiar
to the agency and their staff. As a result of these skill sets and experiences, agencies
are able to provide these programs, which might have already be in place for their
constituents and include a competent staff and an established history of success, at a
much higher level compared with the leave and time off FFEBPs.
The results of Hypothesis 2a, the only hypothesis that was not supported, create
an interesting discussion regarding the possible dynamics between an employee’s
job self-efficacy and the use of leave and time off FFEBPs. A key element in one’s
job self-efficacy is the ongoing exercise of self-influence (Bandura, 1997; Gist et al.,
1991). Furthermore, job self-efficacy can be influenced by an employee’s reflection
M u lva n e y
481
of their abilities and recognition of the possible consequences of their actions. When
examining this study’s findings and the relationship between job self-efficacy and
leave and time off FFEBPs, there is a growing line of research that has examined the
effects of employees taking time off or utilizing leave time. For example, de Bloom
et al. (2010) examined the effects of time off from work on the employee’s health
and well-being perceptions. The research found that while employees’ health and
well-being perceptions improved during time away from work, these effects fade
rapidly after work resumption. In addition, the pre-time off planning by employees
can, in some instances, actually increase stress levels as employees engage in a
heightened workload (i.e., work plan delegation, coordinate replacement schedules,
communication plans, wrap up outstanding projects, etc.) in anticipation of their
departure (de Bloom et al., 2010). Reflecting on Hypothesis 2a and de Bloom et al.’s
research, a possible explanation for the non-significant findings could center on the
employees’ potentially negative perceptions associated with the consequences of
taking time away from work through the utilization of one of these FFEBPs, which,
in turn, has a neutral effect on their job self-efficacy perceptions. These negative
perceptions might also be affected by how their actions are perceived by other
employees in the organization. In particular, a key element influencing one s job
self-efficacy is the social referential comparisons and if employees perceive others
in the organization might view their time away from work in a negative mannei (i.e.,
extra workloads for remaining employees, perceptions of laziness by the employee
utilizing the specific leave or time off FFEBP, etc.), the job self-efficacy of employ
ees utilizing these FFEBPs could be affected. Additional research examining the
internal and external perceptions and effects of leave and time off FFEBPs is recom
mended to more fully understand the possible complexities associated with these
employee benefits.
Professional Implications
Research examining the effects of FFEBP in the workplace can serve as an informa
tional resource for public agencies’ HR planning strategies. FFEBP research can aid
public agencies and their managers in the creation of effective benefits programs,
assessment of their existing HR strategies, and provide direction for future programs
and resources that are aligned with staff needs. Research exploring links between job
attitudes (i.e., organizational commitment and self-efficacy) and FFEBP also has merit
as these agencies reflect on the role of these FFEBPs in the recruitment and retention
of high performers within the agency. The findings from this study suggest that public
agencies providing leave programs and time off and/or work—family stress manage
ment benefits have employees who are more committed to the agency. Furthermore,
the agencies providing work-family stress management benefits generally have
employees with higher levels of motivation (i.e., job self-efficacy) than employees
working in agencies without these programs. These findings suggest that agencies
with these FFEBPs appear to have a strategic advantage over non-FFEBP agencies
and a potentially more productive workforce.
Although the findings highlight a potentially positive effect for the presence of
leave programs and time off and/or work-family stress management benefits, careful
planning and agency-wide assessment is recommended prior to implementation of a
FFEBP. Researchers have echoed this need for thorough FFEBP planning prior to
implementation and have suggested the following strategies (Mulvaney, 2010):
1. One size does not fit all. What works for one agency, may (or may not) work
for others. Rather, each agency should think about customizing the FFEBP to
ensure that it is aligned with the agency’s mission and priorities. Agency audits
of their culture and work environment can help in ascertaining the appropriate
ness of a FFEBP.
2. Avoid placing an unreasonable burden on statistics to support/challenge the
need for FFEBP in your agency. Reliance on a combination of quantitative
(i.e., questionnaires, usage rates, etc.) and qualitative data (i.e., staff inter
views, focus groups, etc.) data is recommended. Agencies should answer the
following questions: What is the mission of our agency and what does that tell
us about what we should be doing? What are the guiding values within our
agency? Based upon our values, where does a FFEBP fit in our agency? How
satisfied is our agency with the current workplace culture? Where do you want
to be? What role could a FFEBP play in changing/reshaping that culture?
3. Don’t ignore the skeptics. It is likely that an agency will have some skeptics. If
skepticism persists, even after the facts and costs have been identified/pro-
moted, deeper issues may be occurring (i.e., fears, attitudes, values, etc.). For
example, one of the more common issues with FFEBP centers on administra
tion fearing that promoting a workplace with a blurred distinction between
work time and personal time will be detrimental to the intemal/extemal service
within the agency. Another issue is the concern by administration and staff that
employees using FFEBP will take unfair advantage of these benefits (i.e., com
pleting personal chores/tasks while telecommuting from home).
4. Consideration of the costs and benefits of the FFEBP. When calculating the
bottom-line benefits associated with work-family concerns, the agency must
consider the costs of the problems left unattended and the benefits associated
with any initiatives. Mulvaney (2010) offered an example formula and qualita
tive measures for measuring the costs and benefits associated with an agency’s
FFEBP (see Figure 1).
5. Organizational climate needs to be considered. Managers’ attitudes and the
general work environment have been shown to be even more important than
specific policies associated with the FFEBP (i.e., number of after-school pro
grams an employee’s child can register for at a reduced cost) in helping
employees balance work with personal responsibilities (Mulvaney, 2010).
Thus, it is important that prior to implementing a FFEBP, the agency must
ensure that managers are trained/educated on work-family issues and the
FFEBP.
Mulvaney 483
Quantitative Data Calculation Qualitative Data Calculation
1. ) Number of FFEB users = ? 1.) Flas the FFEBP improved moral?

2. ) Number of employees retained (.005 x Flow, or in what way?
number of users) = ? 2. ) Flas the FFEBP impacted quality
3. ) Average cost of turnover (.75 x average efforts within the agency?
salary) = ? 3. ) Flas the FFEBP impacted the
4. ) Dollar savings (# of employees retained x agency’s public & community
turnover cost) = ? relations? Flow, or in what way?
5. ) Flow does the dollar savings compare to 4.) Fias the FFEBP enhanced the
resources invested in the FFEBP? agency’s personnel recruitment
efforts?
F ig u re I . Example FFEBP cost-benefit calculations.

Note. FFEBP = family-friendly employee benefits programs.
6. Get staff involved. Management research has found extensive support for staff
involvement in the design and development phases of projects, policies, pro
grams, etc. (Roberts, 2003). The more staff is involved in the development of
the FFEBP and its policies, the more likely they will develop a stronger sense
of ownership and acceptance of the program. Agency administrators should
work to get staff involved in the development and coordination of the FFEBP.
The formation of a committee for the FFEBP that includes a cross-sectional
representation of staff (i.e., entry, mid, and upper level) within the agency is a
recommended approach. By serving on the committee, employees become
active participants and have a voice in the FFEBP development process. They
are empowered to rebut changes to the FFEBP, propose new ideas, and vote on
revisions. Simply put, the employee attains ownership over the process and has
a personal stake in the success of the FFEBP, which enhances employee accep
tance (Roberts, 2003).
7. Clear policies and procedures for the FFEBP are needed. For instance, an
agency might establish a flextime schedule that includes a band of core time
where each employee must be present (i.e., 10 a.m.-2 p.m.). Employees are
free to arrive before the core time and/or remain after the core time with certain
restrictions (i.e., cannot start before 5 am and cannot stay past 11 pm). The
agency has no daily hour requirements (i.e., 8-hr day), but employees must
work at least 40 hrs per week. Employee handbook(s) covering the FFEBP
policies should also be developed.
8. An open sign of support is needed from management. Agency administrators
must openly communicate their support for the FFEBP. A common practice
involves management developing a statement acknowledging the importance
of family and personal life among staff and how the FFEBP can assist staff
manage these issues.
484 P u b lic P e rs o n n e l M a n a g e m e n t 4 3 ( 4 )
9. Regular evaluation of the FFEBP is encouraged. To be successful, an agency’s

FFEBP must undergo an ongoing evaluation. The FFEBP should be monitored
and revised in the attempt to enhance the program to further ensure that the
desired outcomes (i.e., adequate usage rates, staff satisfaction with benefits,
perceived family-friendly workplace, etc.) are achieved.
Limitations and Future Research
While this study sought to examine the effects of two FFEBPs on employees’ organi
zational commitment and job self-efficacy, additional research is needed to further the
field’s understanding of these FFEBPs within the public sector. Additional research is
needed on the design, development, and management of these FFEBPs. Specifically,
it is possible that the differences in the design, development, and management of the
leave programs and time off and work-family stress management FFEBPs might have
a moderating effect on the relationship between organizational commitment, employee
motivation, and the availability of these FFEBPs. Issues such as poorly designed
FFEBP, inconsistent expectations or standards of use for these programs, organiza
tional culture, and/or managerial support could affect the effects of these programs.
While this current study examined the potential moderating effect of individual-level
factors, research examining possible institutional moderators, such as those mentioned
above, is recommended. Other factors for possible inclusion might include the effects
of employee participation in the FFEBP development process. Management research
has identified connections between employee involvement in the development of
agency initiatives and programs (i.e., involvement in designing and delivering staff
training, performance appraisal process, employee benefit decisions, etc.) and job atti
tudes (Mulvaney, McKinney, & Grodsky, 2012; Roberts, 2003). Thus, research exam
ining the links between employee participation in FFEBP design and motivation and
other job attitudes appears warranted.
While this study attempted to serve as a starting point for research on the links
between leave programs and time off and/or work-family stress management benefits
and organizational commitment and job self-efficacy, research examining other work
place attitudes and behaviors is recommended. Additional research that includes vari
ables such as job satisfaction, organizational culture, perceived utility and effectiveness
of the FFEBP, and supervisory and peer support can help further the public sector’s
understanding of the potential impact of these FFEBPs. Future research that builds
upon the current study’s findings and examines the variables recommended above can
continue moving the literature to a streamlined model that denotes the role played by
FFEBPs in the public sector workplace.
Caution is also expressed in interpreting the findings. While the study yielded sev
eral statistically significant findings, it is also worth mentioning the issue of statistical
significance versus practical significance. For example, although Hypothesis la was
supported with statistically significant results, the amount of variance in an employ
ee’s organizational commitment accounted for by the availability of leave and time off
FFEBPs was limited to approximately 1%. Again, future research on other public sec
tor professionals is needed to more clearly identify the effects of FFEBPs.
M u lv a n e y 485
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational percep
tions. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 58,414-435.
Association for the Study of Higher Education. (2012). Strategic HR and organization develop
ment: A holistic process [Special issue: Creating a tipping point: Strategic human resources
in higher education], ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(1), 69-89.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations o f thoughts and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise o f control. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance stan
dards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 805-814.
Bartlett, K. R., & McKinney, W. R. (2004). A study of the role of professional development, job
attitudes, and turnover among public park and recreation employees. Journal o f Park and
Recreation Administration, 22(4), 63-81.
Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making a link between work-life balance practices
and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 9-22.
Bernard, T. S. (2013, February 22). In paid family leave, U.S. trails most of the globe. The New
York Times, pp. Bl.
Bohen, H. N., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life: Do flexible work
schedules help? Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2004). Managing human resources (13th ed). Mason, OH: Thomson
South-Western.
Breaugh, J. A., & Frye, N. K. (2008). Work-family conflict: The importance of family-
friendly employment practices and family-supportive supervisors. Journal o f Business and
Broughton, K„ Scheunemann, J., Lee, C., & Payne, L. (2013). Combating staff burnout: A
research update. Parks and Recreation, 48(6), 12-22.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2013). Employee benefits in the United
States-March 2013. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ebs2.pdf
Caillier, J. G. (2012). Satisfaction with work-life benefits and organizational commitment/
job involvement: Is there a connection? Review o f Public Personnel Administration, 33,
340-364.
Csiemik, R., Chaulk, P., & McQuaid, S. (2012). A process evaluation of a Canadian pub
lic sector employee assistance program. Journal o f Workplace Behavioral Health, 27,
160-180.
486 P u b lic P e rso n n e l M a n a g e m e n t 4 3 ( 4 )
Davis, T. R. V., & Luthans, F. (1980). A social learning approach to organizational behavior.
Academy o f Management Review, 5, 281 -290.
de Bloom, J., Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, T. W., Sonnentag, S., de Weerth, C., & Kompier, M. A. J.
(2010). Effects of vacation from work on health and well-being: Lots of fun, quickly gone.
Work & Stress, 24, 196-216.
Diaz, I. S., & Wallick, R. (2009). Leisure and illness leave: Estimating benefits in combination.
Monthly Labor Review, 36(2), 28-34.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: John Wiley.
Dong, L., Mitchell, L R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B., & Hinkin, T. R. (2012). When employees
are out of step with coworkers: How job satisfaction trajectory and dispersion influ
ence individual-and unit-level voluntary turnover. Academy o f Management Journal 55
1360-1380.
Durst, S. L. (1999). Assessing the effect of family friendly programs on public organizations.
Review o f Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 19-33.
Earle, A., Mokomane, Z., & Heymann, J. (2011). International perspectives on work-family
policies: Lessons from the world’s most competitive economies. Future o f Children 21
191-210.
Ezra, M., & Deckman, M. (1996). Balancing work and family responsibilities: Flextime and
childcare in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 56, 174-197.
Facer, R. L., II, & Wadsworth, L. (2008). Alternative work schedules and work family balance:
A research note. Review o f Public Administration, 28, 166-177.
Galinsky, E., Sakai, K., & Wigton, T. (2011). Workplace flexibility: From research to action.
Future o f Children, 21, 141-161.
Gallup. (2013). The state o f the American workplace: Employee engagement insights fo r U.S.
business leaders. Washington, DC: Author.
Gibson, S. K. (2004). Social learning (cognitive) theory and implications for human resource
development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 193-210.
Ginter, P. M., & White, D. D. (1982). A social learning approach to strategic management:
Toward a theoretical foundation. Academy o f Management Review, 7, 253-261.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants
and malleability. Academy o f Management Review, 17, 183-212.
Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and post-training
intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel
Grasz, J. (2010). Nearly one-third o f employers are concerned about top talent leaving their
organizations, finds new CareerBuilder survey. Available from www.careerbuilder.com
Griffing, M. (2006). IRS offers guidance on employee leave-sharing plans. Payroll Manager’s
Report, 6(9), 1-14.
Harrison, A. W„ Rainer, K. R., Jr., Hochwarter, W. A., & Thompson, K. R. (1997). Testing the
self-efficacy-performance linkage of social-cognitive theory. Journal o f Social Psychology
137, 79-88.
HayGroup. (2012). Preparing for take off. Retrieved from https://atrium.haygroup.com/down-
loads/marketingps/ww/Preparing%20for%20take%20off%20-%20executive%20sum-
mary.pdf
Hochschild, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New
York, NY: Viking Press.
Hutchinson, J. R., & Nelson, K. E. (1985). How public agencies can provide family-centered
services. Social Casework, 66,367-371.
M u lv a n e y 487
Jaros, S. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organi
zational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 51, 319-337.
Johnson, A. A. (1995). The business case for work-family programs. Journal o f Accountancy,
180, 53-58.
Kahnweiler, W. M., & Riordan, R. J. (1998). Job and employee support groups: Past and pro
logue. Career Development Quarterly, 47, 173-187.
Kim, J., & Wiggins, M. E. (2011). Family-friendly human resource policy: Is it still working in
the public sector? Public Administration Review, 71, 728-739.
Ko, J., Hur, S. U., & Smith-Waiter, A. (2013). Family-friendly work practices and job sat
isfaction and organizational performance: Moderating effects of managerial support and
performance-oriented management. Public Personnel Management, 42, 545-565.
Kossek, E. F., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfac
tion relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources
research. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149.
Lambert, S. J. (2000). The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behav
ior. Academy o f Management Journal, 43, 801-815.
Latham, G. P., & Frayne, C. A. (1989). Self-management training for increasing job attendance:
A follow-up and replication. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.
Lee, S. Y., & Hong, J. H. (2011). Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact on
turnover and performance. Public Administration Review, 71, 870-879.
Lindsley, D., Brass, D., & Thomas, J. (1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel per
spective. Academy o f Management Review, 20, 645-678.
Martin, J. (2004). Self-regulated learning, social cognitive theory, and agency. Educational
Psychologist, 39, 135-145.
Martocchio, J. J. (1994). Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy, and learning
in training. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 79, 819-825.
Martocchio, J. J., & Webster, J. (1992). Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on perfor
mance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology, 45, 553-578.
Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2011). Human resource management (13th ed.). Mason, OH:
Thomas Learning.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2010). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods:
Practical applications and interpretation (4th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Messmer, P. R., Bragg, J., & Williams, P. D. (2011). Support programs for new graduates in
pediatric nursing. Journal o f Continuing Education in Nursing, 42, 182-192.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and appli
cation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, T. R„ Hopper, H„ Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J., & James, L. R. (1994). Predicting
self-efficacy and performance during skill acquisition. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 79,
506-517.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational com
mitment. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Mulvaney, M. A. (2010, January). Understanding family-friendly employee benefits programs.
Paper presented at the 2010 Illinois Park and Recreation Association/Illinois Association of
Park Districts Conference, Chicago, IL.
Mulvaney, M. A. (2011). The role of family-friendly benefits on job self-efficacy and orga
nizational commitment of public park and recreation professionals. Journal o f Park and
Recreation Administration, 29, 58-79.
Mulvaney, M. A., & Hurd, A. (2012). Official study guide fo r the certified park and recreation
professional examination (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing
Mulvaney, M. A., McKinney, W. R., & Grodsky, R. (2012). The development of a pay-for-
performance appraisal system for municipal agencies. Public Personnel Management, 41
505-534.
Nair, P., & Xavier, M. (2012). Initiating employee assistance program (EAP) for a corporate:
An experiential learning. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 11, 67-76.
Newman, M., & Mathews, K. (1999). Federal family-friendly workplace policies: Barriers to
effective implementation. Review o f Public Personnel Administration, 19, 34-48.
Norusis, M. J. (1998). SPSS 8.0: Guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Paterson, J. (2013, June 20). Employees use holiday allowance for sick leave. Employee
Benefits, pp. 5.
Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and
validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 793-802.
Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that
works. Public Personnel Management, 32, 89-99.
Roberts, G. E., Gianakis, J. A., McCue, C., & Wang, X. (2004). Traditional and family-friendly
benefits practices in local governments: Results from a national survey. Public Personnel
Management, 33, 307-330.
Saks, A. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of
self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 80, 211-225.
Saltzstein, A. L., Ting, Y., & Saltzstein, G. H. (2001). Work-family balance and job satisfac
tion: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees.
Public Administration Review, 61(4), 452-467.
Schmidt, D., & Duenas, G. (2002). Incentives to encourage worker-friendly organizations.
Public Personnel Management, 31, 293-308.
Schunk, D. H. (1999). Social-self interaction and achievement behavior. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 219-227.
Seaverson, E. L., Grossmeier, J., Miller, T. M., & Anderson, D. R. (2009). The role of incentive
design, incentive value, communication strategy, and worksite culture on health risk assess
ment participation. American Journal o f Health Promotion, 23, 343-352.
Secret, M., 8c Swanberg, J. (2008). Work-family experiences and the insights of municipal gov
ernment employees: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 37, 199-221.
Stevens, J. (2001). Applied multivariate statisticsfor the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Straub, C. (2011). Antecedents and organizational consequences of family supportive supervisor
behavior: A multilevel conceptual framework for research. Human Resource Management
Review, 22, 15-26.
Swenty, C. F., Schaar, G. L„ Phillips, L. A., Embree, J. L., McCool, I. A., & Shirey, M. R.
(2011). Nursing sabbatical in the acute care setting: What is the evidence? Nursing Forum,
46, 195-204.
Veiga, J. F., Baldridge, D. C., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Toward understanding employee
reluctance to participate in family-friendly programs. Human Resource Management
Review, 14, 337-351.
Mulvaney 489
Wadsworth, L. L., Facer, R. L., & Arbon, C. A. (2010). Alternative work schedules in local
government: Cui bono? Review o f Public Personnel Administration, 30, 322-340.
Walker, B. A., & Hanson, W. C. (1992). Valuing differences at Digital Equipment Corporation.
In S. E. Jackson (Ed.), Diversity in the workplace: Human resources initiatives (pp. 119-
137). New York, NY: Guilford.
Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment,
and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel
Wegener, N. (1992). Supportive group services in the workplace: The practice and the potential.
Social Work With Groups, 5, 207-222.
Widera, E., Chang, A., & Chen, H. (2010). Presenteeism: A public health hazard. Journal o f
General Internal Medicine, 25, 1244-1247.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy o f Management Review, 14, 361-384.
Yalabik, Z. Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J. A., & Rayton, B. A. (2013). Work engagement as
a mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes. International Journal o f Human
Resource Management, 24, 2799-2823.
Young, D. (2004). Survey: Workers still crave balance. Potentials, 37(8), 6-7.
A uthor Biography
Michael A. Mulvaney, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Recreation
Administration at Eastern Illinois University. He received his PhD from the University of
Illinois. His research interests include training and development, compensation, benefits, learn
ing technologies in human resource development (HRD), and performance appraisal practices.
Copyright of Public Personnel Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Leave Programs/Time Off and Work-Stress Family Employee Benefits Programs, Organizational Commitment, and Self-Efficacy Among Municipal Employees (Mulvaney 2014)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leave Programs/Time Off and Work-Stress Family Employee Benefits Programs, Organizational Commitment, and Self-Efficacy Among Municipal Employees (Mulvaney 2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Public Personnel Management

and W ork-S tress Family sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Employee Benefits Programs, ppm.sagepub.com

'Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA

2004). The number of dual-career households, workers with eldercare responsibility,

Fam ily-F rien d ly Em ployee Benefits

Leave Programs and Time O ff Benefits

W o rk-F a m ily Stress M anagem ent Benefits

Johnson (1995) has conceptualized work-family stress management programs into

When exploring the achievement/behavior outcomes within Social Cognitive

Self-efficacy is conceptualized in Social Cognitive Theory as individuals’ beliefs in

their perceived significance to the individual. Anticipated self-reactions are influenced

T a b le I. Leave P ro g ra m s and W o rk - F a m ily S tress M a n a g e m e n t In s tru m e n t.

A lis t o f e m p lo y e e b e n e fits a re p ro v id e d b e lo w . W h ic h o f t h e fo llo w in g e m p lo y e e b e n e fits

Leave p ro g ra m s and tim e o f f b e n e fits

W o r k -fa m ily stress m an ag em en t. Research on FFEBP has identified four work-family

T a b le 2. Job Self-Efficacy Instrument.

I have confidence in my ability to do

The participants’ commitment to their agencies was mea­

D e m o g ra p h ic variables. Information on six demographic variables was collected:

T a b le 3. O rganizational C o m m itm e n t Instrum ent.

Strongly M oderately Slightly Slightly M oderately Strongly

I am w illin g to p ut a great deal o f e ffo rt

T a b le 4 . D escrip tive Statistics fo r th e T o ta l Sample.

B. Sample mean and standard deviation

Brief phone interviews were conducted with 25 of the non-respondents in an effort to

O rg a n iza tio n a l C o m m itm e n t and FFEBP

aC o d e : 0 = FFEBP n o t a v a ila b le w it h in e m p lo y e e ’s a g e n c y ; I = FFEBP a v a ila b le w it h in e m p lo y e e ’s ag e n c y .

-O <D E " > 0 - 3 0) rc3 O -Q

T a b le 6 . H ie ra rc h ic a l L in e a r R egre ssion A n a lysis S u m m a ry T a b le f o r O rg a n iz a tio n a l

Note. FFEBP = fam ily-friendly employee benefits program.

T a b le 7 . H ie ra rc h ic a l L in e a r R e gre ssion A n a lysis S u m m a ry T a b le f o r O rg a n iz a tio n a l

2 W o r k - f a m ily re s o u rc e c e n te r 6.33 1.92 3.29 .00

Note. FFEBP = family-friendly employee benefits program.

T a b le 8 . H ierarchical Linear Regression Analysis Summary Table fo r Job Self-Efficacy and

Note. FFEBP = fam ily-friendly employee benefits program.

health promotion programs as a stronger predictor of professionals’ organizational

Job Self-Efficacy a n d FFEBP

Block Variable R2 AR2 F P B SE T P

Note. FFEBP = family-friendly employee benefits program.

Social Cognitive Theory’s reciprocal determinism served as the theoretical frame­

Quantitative Data Calculation Qualitative Data Calculation

1. ) Number of FFEB users = ? 1.) Flas the FFEBP improved moral?

F ig u re I . Example FFEBP cost-benefit calculations.

9. Regular evaluation of the FFEBP is encouraged. To be successful, an agency’s

Limitations and Future Research

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like

The participants’ commitment to their agencies was mea

Social Cognitive Theory’s reciprocal determinism served as the theoretical frame