IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v35y2021i4p716-734.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Women Managers’ Impact on Use of Family-friendly Measures among Their Subordinates in Japanese Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Makiko Fuwa

Abstract

Using data from the Survey on Support for Work–Life Balance conducted in Japan, this study investigates the role of female managers in enhancing their male and female subordinates’ access to family-friendly measures in the workplace. Research on organisational gender inequality has proposed two contrasting perspectives regarding the impact of female managers on gender inequality, describing female managers as either ‘change agents’ or ‘cogs in the machine’. However, previous research has rarely investigated whether female managers address men’s limited access to family-friendly measures, which is often the hidden side of the coin of gender imbalance in male-dominated organisations. Results indicate that female managers were more likely to have subordinates who take parental leave and to exhibit stronger support for male subordinates’ family-related requests than male managers, although, like male managers, they reported feeling that managing their sections during these absences is a challenge. The implications of the findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Makiko Fuwa, 2021. "Women Managers’ Impact on Use of Family-friendly Measures among Their Subordinates in Japanese Firms," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 35(4), pages 716-734, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:35:y:2021:i:4:p:716-734
    DOI: 10.1177/0950017020987409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017020987409
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0950017020987409?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David A. Matsa & Amalia R. Miller, 2014. "Workforce Reductions at Women-Owned Businesses in the United States," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 67(2), pages 422-452, April.
    2. Markus Gangl & Andrea Ziefle, 2009. "Motherhood, labor force behavior, and women’s careers: An empirical assessment of the wage penalty for motherhood in britain, germany, and the united states," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 46(2), pages 341-369, May.
    3. Checchi, Daniele & Cicognani, Simona & Kulic, Nevena, 2018. "Gender Quotas or Girls' Networks? Evidence from an Italian Research Selection," IZA Discussion Papers 12021, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Vanessa Gash, 2009. "Sacrificing Their Careers for Their Families? An Analysis of the Penalty to Motherhood in Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 569-586, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elizabeth Cotton & T Alexandra Beauregard & Janroj Yilmaz Keles, 2021. "Gender Equalities: What Lies Ahead," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 35(4), pages 615-620, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Oesch & Oliver Lipps & Patrick McDonald, 2017. "The wage penalty for motherhood: Evidence on discrimination from panel data and a survey experiment for Switzerland," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(56), pages 1793-1824.
    2. Grimshaw, Damian. & Rubery, Jill., 2015. "The motherhood pay gap : a review of the issues, theory and international evidence," ILO Working Papers 994873763402676, International Labour Organization.
    3. Hanna Jung, 2023. "Gender wage penalty in parenthood: A comparative study of South Korea and Japan," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 3-26, February.
    4. Hipp, Lena, 2018. "Do hiring practices penalize women and benefit men for having children? Experimental evidence from Germany," SocArXiv 4a68p, Center for Open Science.
    5. Hipp, Lena, 2020. "Do hiring practices penalize women and benefit men for having children? Experimental evidence from Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 36(2), pages 250-264.
    6. Budig, Michelle J. & Misra, Joya & Boeckmann, Irene, 2016. "Work-family policy trade-offs for mothers? Unpacking the cross-national variation in motherhood earnings penalties," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(2), pages 119-177.
    7. Sirpa Weckström, 2015. "Finnish Mothers’ Assessments of the Harmfulness of Childcare at Home on Occupational Careers: A Comparison of Twelve European Countries," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-22, November.
    8. Maria Marshall & Anna Flaig, 2014. "Marriage, Children, and Self-Employment Earnings: An Analysis of Self-Employed Women in the US," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 313-322, September.
    9. repec:ilo:ilowps:487376 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Kadreva, Olga, 2016. "The influence of quantity and age of children on working women’ salaries," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 41, pages 62-77.
    11. Tatiana Karabchuk, 2016. "The subjective well-being of women in Europe: children, work and employment protection legislation," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 15(2), pages 219-245, November.
    12. Collischon, Matthias, 2016. "Personality, ability, marriage and the gender wage gap: Evidence from Germany," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 08/2016, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics.
    13. Andersen, Signe Hald & Özcan, Berkay, 2021. "The effects of unemployment on fertility," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109007, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Jessen, Jonas & Jessen, Robin & Kluve, Jochen, 2019. "Punishing potential mothers? Evidence for statistical employer discrimination from a natural experiment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59, pages 164-172.
    15. Lingxi Chen, 2022. "The Effect of Increased Access to IVF on Women's Careers," Papers 2205.14186, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    16. Bruno Rodrigues & Vincent Vergnat, 2016. "The impact on wages and worked hours of childbirth in France," Working Papers of BETA 2016-48, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    17. Kamila Cygan-Rehm & Miriam Maeder, 2012. "The Effect of Education on Fertility: Evidence from a Compulsory Schooling Reform," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 528, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    18. Bruno Rodrigues & Vincent Vergnat, 2019. "The time and the transitions back to work in France after maternity," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 861-888, September.
    19. Fallesen, Peter, 2016. "Downward spiral: The impact of out-of-home placement on paternal welfare dependency," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 45-55.
    20. Robert M. Sauer & Christopher Taber, 2021. "Understanding women's wage growth using indirect inference with importance sampling," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 453-473, June.
    21. Charlene Marie Kalenkoski & Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia, 2022. "Impacts of COVID-19 on the self-employed," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 741-768, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:35:y:2021:i:4:p:716-734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.