Supplemental family leave provision and employee performance: Disentangling availability and use

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Table 1. Rotated factor loadings and unique variances of performance commitment items.

Concept	Item wording	Factor1	Factor2	Factor3	Uniqueness
Task performance	I was able to plan my work so that I finished on time	0.80	−0.12	−0.01	0.41
	I kept in mind the work results I needed to achieve	0.69	0.14	0.01	0.44
	I was able to set priorities	0.77	0.12	−0.01	0.35
	I was able to do my work efficiently	0.83	−0.03	0.05	0.30
	I managed my time well	0.84	−0.02	−0.01	0.31
Contextual performance	Without being told, I started on new tasks after finishing up my work	0.07	0.71	−0.06	0.49
	I took on challenging new tasks when they were available	0.01	0.85	0.01	0.26
	I worked on keeping my work skills up-to-date	0.16	0.60	0.04	0.54
	I took on extra responsibilities	−0.05	0.82	0.01	0.35
	I actively participated in meetings and/or consultations	−0.05	0.66	0.06	0.55
Organizational commitment	I am willing to go above and beyond the call of duty to help my organization be successful	−0.02	0.21	0.63	0.49
	I tell my friends that my organization is a great place to work	0.05	−0.06	0.88	0.23
	I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization	0.01	−0.04	0.91	0.19
	I really care about the future of this organization	−0.05	0.04	0.82	0.32
Eigenvalue		4.72	2.19	1.88
Cronbach's Alpha		0.85	0.80	0.84

Note: N = 8,861. Oblique rotation with oblimin criterion.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

		Total		Women		Men
	Min/max	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Contextual performance	1-5	3.27	.93	3.26	.93	3.28	.92
Task performance	1-5	3.77	.77	3.81	.77	3.73	.77
Organizational commitment	1-5	3.81	.75	3.80	.74	3.83	.76
Supplemental leave available		.13		.13		.13
Use of family leave:
No child < 18 in household		.60		.61		.59
No leave used		.13		.10		.17
Use statutory leave		.22		.25		.20
Use supplemental leave		.04		.04		.04
Control variables
Male		.44
Age group:
Below 30		.15		.16		.14
30-44		.43		.44		.43
45 and above		.42		.41		.43
Age of youngest child:
No child < 18 in household		.60		.61		.59
Below 6		.17		.15		.19
6 − 12 years		.15		.15		.14
13-18 years		.08		.09		.08
Partner		.74		.72		.76
Years of education	2-20	13.52	2.93	13.70	2.72	13.28	3.16
Working hours	0-84	39.49	9.59	37.67	9.69	41.75	8.96
Occupational status (ISEI)	11-89	56.7	18.6	57.6	17.1	55.5	20.2
Size company	9-10,000	864.28	1893.99	919.19	1967.14	795.77	1796.44
Private (vs. public or charity)		.62		.54		.71
Sector
Financial services		.13		.15		.11
Health care		.23		.33		.11
Higher education		.18		.20		.15
Manufacturing		.23		.16		.32
Telecommunication		.10		.07		.13
Transportation		.14		.09		.19
Country
Bulgaria		.13		.15		.10
Finland		.07		.08		.06
Germany		.09		.09		.08
Hungary		.12		.13		.12
Netherlands		.23		.21		.25
Portugal		.11		.11		.11
Spain		.08		.07		.10
Sweden		.10		.09		.11
UK		.07		.07		.07
Perceived availability other policies	0-4	1.14	1.08	1.13	1.09	1.17	1.08
Use other policies	0-4	.83	.87	.79	.87	.89	.87
N		8,861		4,921		3,940

^b Flexible working hours, working at home, reducing working hours, and assistance with childcare.

Table 3. Multilevel regression results from path model simultaneously predicting performance and commitment by perceived availability of supplemental family leave provision and control variables.

	Outcome:
	Task Performance		Contextual Performance		Organizational Commitment
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2	Model 1	Model 2
Perceived availability	−0.04^+	0.01	0.20**	0.12**	0.13**	0.15**
supplemental leave: yes (ref: no)	(0.02)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.03)	(0.02)	(0.02)
Family leave use
No child		0.06*		0.01		0.01
		(0.03)		(0.03)		(0.03)
Child - no leave use		0.06*		0.04		0.06*
		(0.03)		(0.03)		(0.03)
Child - use statutory		ref.		ref.		ref.
leave
Child - use		−0.04		0.04		0.01
supplemental leave		(0.05)		(0.05)		(0.04)
Male respondent		−0.04*		−0.01		0.01
(ref.: Female)		(0.02)		(0.02)		(0.02)
Age
Age < 30		ref.		ref.		ref.
Aged 30-44		−0.07**		−0.10**		−0.03
		(0.03)		(0.03)		(0.02)
Aged >45		−0.04		−0.18**		0.04
		(0.03)		(0.03)		(0.02)
Age youngest child
Aged < 6		ref.		ref.		ref.
Aged 6-12		−0.01		−0.02		0.02
		(0.03)		(0.03)		(0.03)
Aged 13-18		−0.00		0.07^+		0.05
		(0.04)		(0.04)		(0.03)
Lives with partner		0.01		0.07**		−0.00
(ref.: no partner in HH)		(0.02)		(0.02)		(0.02)
Years of education		−0.00		0.03**		−0.01**
		(0.00)		(0.00)		(0.00)
Weekly working hours		−0.01**		0.01**		0.00**
		(0.00)		(0.00)		(0.00)
Occupational status		0.00		0.00**		0.00**
(ISEI)		(0.00)		(0.00)		(0.00)
Organizational size		−0.01		0.00		0.01
(log)		(0.01)		(0.01)		(0.02)
Public sector or charity		−0.10**		0.03		−0.08
(ref.: Private)		(0.04)		(0.04)		(0.06)
Organization		−0.24**		−0.27**		−0.19
information missing		(0.08)		(0.09)		(0.12)
Sector
Financial services		ref.		ref.		ref.
Health care		0.04		−0.11*		−0.08
		(0.05)		(0.05)		(0.07)
Higher education		0.06		−0.08		0.03
		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.08)
Manufacturing		−0.01		−0.09*		−0.01
		(0.04)		(0.05)		(0.06)
Telecommunication		0.02		0.00		−0.00
		(0.05)		(0.05)		(0.07)
Transportation		−0.05		−0.25**		−0.07
		(0.04)		(0.05)		(0.07)
Country
Bulgaria		ref.		ref.		ref.
Finland		−0.06		0.26**		−0.15^+
		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.08)
Germany		−0.20**		0.35**		−0.07
		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.08)
Hungary		0.11*		0.13*		−0.21**
		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.08)
Netherlands		−0.11**		0.44**		−0.16*
		(0.04)		(0.05)		(0.07)
Portugal		−0.13**		0.46**		0.09
		(0.05)		(0.05)		(0.08)
Spain		−0.11*		0.38**		−0.07
		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.08)
Sweden		−0.32**		0.45**		−0.18*
		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.07)
UK		−0.07		0.57**		−0.03
		(0.05)		(0.06)		(0.09)
Constant	3.80**	4.19**	3.27**	1.91**	3.83**	3.78**
	(0.01)	(0.09)	(0.02)	(0.11)	(0.02)	(0.12)
BIC	62625	62316
Observations	8861	8861

Standard errors in parentheses. Variance components are omitted from table.

+ p < 0.10.

* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.

Figure 2. Coefficient estimates (b) of mediating effect of commitment between availability of supplemental leave and performance and moderation by family leave use, sex, age of respondent and age of youngest child in the household.

Note: Unstandardized coefficients obtained from three-level random intercept path model simultaneously predicting contextual and task performance and commitment by availability of supplemental leave including all control variables from full model (see model 2, Table 1, n = 8,861).

Table 4. Estimates of effect of perceived supplemental family leave availability on contextual and task performance and organizational commitment per country (significant deviations from overall country mean are indicated in bold print).

	BG	FI	DE	HU	NL	PT		ES	SE	UK
Contextual performance
Direct effect availability of supplemental leave on performance	0.32**	0.11	0.22*	0.11	0.09^+	0.04		0.10	0.06	0.33**
	(2.7)	(0.8)	(2.0)	(0.8)	(1.9)	(0.4)		(1.0)	(0.8)	(3.2)
Direct effect availability of supplemental leave controlled for commitment	0.17	0.08	0.07	0.08	0.06	−.00		0.05	0.06	0.28**
	(1.5)	(0.6)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(1.3)	(0.0)		(0.5)	(0.9)	(3.2)
Effect of commitment on performance	0.42**	0.44**	0.45**	0.44**	0.31**	0.38**		0.36**	0.38**	0.34**
	(7.3)	(8.1)	(7.6)	(9.4)	(9.5)	(7.5)		(6.6)	(8.1)	(5.2)
Indirect effect of supplemental leave on performance via commitment	0.12**	0.06	0.12**	0.02	0.04**	0.02		0.02	0.07**	0.05^+
	(2.8)	(1.2)	(2.9)	(0.4)	(3.3)	(0.8)		(0.6)	(2.6)	(1.7)
Task performance
Direct effect availability of supplemental leave on performance	0.11	0.03	0.08	−0.22 +	−0.01	−0.05		0.02	0.01	0.12
	(1.0)	(0.3)	(0.9)	(−1.9)	(−0.3)	(−0.6)		(0.2)	(0.1)	(1.3)
Direct effect of availability of supplemental leave controlled for commitment	0.02	0.00	−0.00	−0.24*	−0.05	−0.06		−0.03	−0.03	0.03
	(0.2)	(0.0)	(−0.0)	(−2.3)	(−1.4)	(−0.8)		(−0.3)	(−0.5)	(0.4)
Effect of commitment on performance	0.36**	0.27**	0.27**	0.25**	0.22**	0.24**	0.34**		0.33**	0.31**
	(10.9)	(7.7)	(6.9)	(8.1)	(10.1)	(6.3)	(7.9)		(9.0)	(6.3)
Indirect effect of supplemental leave on performance via commitment	0.11**	0.04	0.07**	0.01	0.03**	0.01	0.02		0.06**	0.04^+
	(3.0)	(1.2)	(2.9)	(0.4)	(3.3)	(0.8)	(0.6)		(2.6)	(1.7)
Effect of availability of supplemental leave on commitment	0.29**	0.13	0.27**	0.04	0.14**	0.06	0.05		0.18**	0.15
	(3.1)	(1.2)	(3.2)	(0.4)	(3.5)	(0.8)	(0.6)		(2.7)	(1.7)
N	1088	719	724	1024	2147	930	730		890	609

Note: Indirect effect were obtained with the delta method. Estimates from three-level random intercept path models simultaneously predicting contextual and task performance and commitment by availability of supplemental leave. Control variables omitted from table: sex, partner present, child present, age youngest child, age group, work hours, education (years), occupational status (ISEI). Z value in parentheses.

+ p < 0.10.

* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.0.

Figure 3. Coefficient estimates (b) of interaction effects between perceived availability of supplemental leave (‘yes’) and family leave use, sex, age of respondent and age of youngest child in the household.

Note: Unstandardized coefficients obtained from three-level random intercept path model including all control variables from full model (see model 2, Table 1, n = 8,861). Main effects omitted from figure.