The term “family-friendly” has been broadened to “employee-friendly” to encompass employees who may not benefit from traditional familial benefits. This change in terminology, focusing on employees in a general sense, has not necessarily resulted in policies that are beneficial to a dynamic, diverse public service. As demographics and lifestyles of federal government employees change, human resource policies will need to adapt to meet the needs of this population. This research explores the impact that employee-friendly policies (i.e. family, health, and socio-economic) have on the employee, and the workplace environment. This project attempts to bridge the gap between the theory- driven creation of employee-friendly policies and the practice of beneficial policies that employees will take advantage of. Results suggest that as demographics of the public service change, the need for human resource practices to be modified becomes even more apparent to achieve an appropriate work-life balance. In order to address these challenges, this work offers policy recommendations for increased levels of job satisfaction, which focus on benefits useful in improving federal public servants’ wellness.
BaeK.B. & GoodmanD. (2014). The influence of family-friendly policies on turnover and performance in South Korea. Public Personnel Management, 43(4): 520–542.
2.
BrightL. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees?The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2): 149–166.
3.
CaillierJ. G. (2016). Does satisfaction with family-friendly programs reduce turnover? A panel study conducted in U.S. Federal Agencies. Public Personnel Management, 45(3): 284–307.
4.
CaillierJ.G. (2012). Satisfaction with work-life benefits and organizational commitment/job involvement: Is there a connection?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(4): 340–364.
5.
CasperW. & HarrisC. (2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attachment: Self-interest utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1): 95–109.
6.
ChoiS. (2017). Workforce diversity and job satisfaction of the majority and the minority: Analyzing the asymmetrical effects of relational demography on whites and racial/ ethnic minorities. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(1): 84–107.
7.
ChoiS. & RaineyH.G. (2010). Managing diversity in U.S. federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(1): 109–121.
8.
DolanJ. (2004). Gender Equity: Illusion or Reality for Women in the Federal Executive Service?Public Administration Review, 64(3): 299–308.
9.
Duerst-LahtiG. & JohnsonC. M. (1990). Gender and style in bureaucracy. Women and Politics, 10(4): 67–120.
10.
EzraM. & DeckmanM. (1996). Balancing work and family responsibilities: Flextime and child care in the federal government. Public Administration Review, 56(2): 174–197.
11.
FarazmandA. (2007). Strategic Public Personnel Administration: Building and Managing Human Capital for the 21stCentury.Praeger Publishing: Westport, CT.
12.
GoffS., MountM.K., JamisonR. (1990). Employer supported child care, work/family conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology, 43(4):793–809.
13.
GuyM. E. & NewmanM. A. (2004). Women's jobs and men's jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64(3): 289–298.
14.
GuyM.E., NewmanM.A., & Mastracci. (2008). Emotional Labor: Putting the service in public service. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY.
15.
HsiehC., JinM. & GuyM.E. (2012). Consequences of work-related emotions: Analysis of a cross- section of public service workers. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(1): 39–53.
16.
KeiserL., WilkinsV., MeierK. & HollandC. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96(3): 553–564.
17.
KellyR.M., & NewmanM. (2001). The gendered bureaucracy: Agency mission, equality of opportunity, and representative bureaucracy. Women & Politics, 22(3): 1–33.
18.
Kellough, EdwardJ., and NaffKatherine C. (2004).Responding to a wake-up call: An examination of federal agency diversity management programs. Administration & Society, 36(1): 62–90.
19.
KimJ. & WigginsM. E. (2011). Family-friendly human resource policy: Is it still working in the public sector?Public Administration Review, 71(5): 728–739.
20.
KinnunenU. & MaunoS. (1998). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among employed women and men in Finland. Human Relations, 51(2): 157–178.
21.
KossekE., ColquittJ. & NoeR. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance: The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work-family climates. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 29–44.
22.
LeeS-Y. & HongJ.H. (2011). Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact on turnover and performance. Public Administration Review, 71(6): 870–879.
23.
LewisGregory B. (1991). Turnover and the quiet crisis in the federal civil service. Public Administration Review, 51(2):145–155.
24.
LobelS. & KossekE. (1996). Human resource strategies to support diversity in work and personal lifestyles: Beyond the family-friendly organization. In Managing Diversity: Human Resource Strategies for Transforming the Workplace, ed. KossekEllen and LobelSharon, 221–244. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
25.
LowiT. (1985). The State in Politics: The Relation between Policy and Administration. In Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences. ed. NollRoger, 67–104. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
26.
MeierK., MastracciS.H., & WilsonK. (2006). Gender and emotional labor in public organizations: an empirical examination of the link to performance. Public Administration Review, 66(6): 899–909.
27.
NetemeyerR.BolesJ., & McMurrian. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4): 400–410.
28.
NewmanM. A. (1995). The Gendered Nature of Lowi's Typology; or, Who would guess you could find gender here? In Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance, eds. Duerst-LahtiGeorgia and KellyRita Mae, 141–164. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
29.
OstermanP. (1995). Work/family programs and the employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4): 681–700.
30.
Pink-HarperS. A., DavisR., & BurnsideR., (2017). ““Justice for All”: An examination of self-identified LGBT's Job Satisfaction in the U.S. federal workforce.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 34(2): 182–197.
31.
PittsD. W. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and organizational performance: Evidence from federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69(2): 328–338.
32.
ReidM., MillerW., KerrB. (2004). Sex-based glass ceilings in U.S. state- level bureaucracies, 1987–1997. Administration & Society, 36(4): 377–405.
33.
SabharwalM. (2015). From glass ceiling to glass cliff: Women in senior executive service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2): 399–426.
34.
SaidelJ.R. and LoscoccoK. (2005). Agency leaders, gendered institutions, and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 65(2): 158–170.
35.
SaltzsteinA.L, TingY., & SaltzsteinG.H. (2001). Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration Review, 61(4): 452–467.
36.
SeldenS.C. (1997). The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy: Diversity and Responsiveness in a Government Agency.Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
37.
SeldenS. C. (2009). Human Capital: Tools and Strategies for the Public Sector.Washington, DC. CQ Press.
38.
StiversC. (2002). Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the Administrative State.2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publishing.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2014). Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey Results: Employees Influencing Change. Governmentwide Management Report. Retrieved August 7, 2015 from http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2014/Published/.
41.
YangK., & KassekertA. (2010). Linking management reform with employee job satisfaction: Evidence from federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2):413–436.
