Why do employers give discretion? Family versus performance concerns
AbstractUsing a large data set of Western European employees, I examine two sets of reasons behind employers' decisions to give discretion: performance concerns (firms give discretion in order to improve performance) and family concerns (firms wish to improve the employees' work–family balance). I find more support for the former than for the latter. Discretion is positively related to the use of "high-performance" work practices and to employee position and ability, and is smaller in larger establishments, which suggests that loss of control matters to employers. Evidence about family concerns is less compelling. Female participation in the labor force has a positive effect on discretion over work schedules, but women have less discretion than men, and employees with small children do not have more discretion than other employees. Large and governmental organizations, which are expected to care more about work–family balance, do not offer more discretion over work schedules than other types of organizations.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Universidad Carlos III de Madrid in its series Open Access publications from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid with number info:hdl:10016/7626.
Length: 28 p.
Date of creation: Jan 2009
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in Industrial Relations (2009-01) v.Vol. 48, p.1-26
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.uc3m.es
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Moers, Frank, 2006. "Performance measure properties and delegation," Open Access publications from Maastricht University urn:nbn:nl:ui:27-13748, Maastricht University.
- Cindy Zoghi & Alec Levenson & Michael Gibbs, 2005.
"Why Are Jobs Designed the Way They Are?,"
382, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
- Baker, George & Gibbs, Michael & Holmstrom, Bengt, 1994. "The Internal Economics of the Firm: Evidence from Personnel Data," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 109(4), pages 881-919, November.
- Paul Osterman, 1994. "How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it?," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 47(2), pages 173-188, January.
- Seltzer, Andrew & Merrett, David T, 2000. "Personnel Policies at the Union Bank of Australia: Evidence from the 1888-1900 Entry Cohorts," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(4), pages 573-613, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Contact person).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.