Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs > v.49(4) > 1131251

TOOLS
Lee and Hwang: The Effects of Hospitals’ Family Friendly Management on Married Female Nurses’ Retention Intention: Focused on the Mediating Effects of Work-Family Interface
Original Article

J Korean Acad Nurs 2019;49(4):386-397.

Published online: 15 January 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2019.49.4.386

The Effects of Hospitals’ Family Friendly Management on Married Female Nurses’ Retention Intention: Focused on the Mediating Effects of Work-Family Interface

Jin Hwa Lee, Jee-In Hwang

College of Nursing Science, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to : Hwang, Jee-In College of Nursing Science, Kyung Hee University, 26 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemoon-gu, Seoul 02447, Korea Tel: +82-2-961-9145 Fax: +82-2-961-9398 E-mail: jihwang@khu.ac.kr

Received 28 November 2018       Revised 10 May 2019       Accepted 13 May 2019

Copyright © 2019 Korean Society of Nursing Science

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs License. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0) If the original work is properly cited and retained without any modification or reproduction, it can be used and re-distributed in any format and medium.

Abstract

Purpose

This study examined the effect of hospitals’ family-friendly management on married female nurses’ retention intention. The focus was the mediating effects of the work-family interface (work-family conflict, work-family enrichment and work-family balance).

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional study. The participants were 307 nurses working at five public and five private hospitals with more than 200 beds in Seoul. Data were collected using structured questionnaires from September 10 to September 17, 2018 and analyzed with SPSS 24.0. Data were analyzed using an independent t-test, a one-way ANOVA, Pearson's correlation coefficients, and multiple regression following the Baron and Kenny method and Sobel test for mediation.

Results

There were significant correlations among family-friendly management, the work-family interface, and retention intention. Work-family conflict showed a partial mediating effect on the relationship between family-friendly management and retention intention. Work-family enrichment showed a partial mediating effect on the relationship between family-friendly management and retention intention. Work-family balance showed a partial mediating effect on the relationship between family-friendly management and retention intention.

Conclusion

These findings indicate that both hospitals’ family-friendly management and nurses’ work-family interface are important factors associated with nurses’ retention intention. Therefore, hospitals should actively implement family-friendly management for nurses and establish strategies to enhance nurses’ work-family interface for effective human resource management.

Keywords: Nurses, Policy, Environment, Family Conflict, Personnel Turnover

References

1. Jang JY, Lee JW, Choi EY, Kim JK. Work-family reconciliation system of trends and policy task in the advanced country. Sejong: Korea Labor Institute;2005. Mar. Report No.: 2005-01.
2. Hong SA, Jang HK, Lee TM, Bae HJ, Lee HS. A study on the business performance of the family-friendly policy proliferation. Seoul: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family;2011. Dec. Report No.: 11-1383000-000220-01.
3. Lee SH, Kim MS, Park SK. A test of work-to-family conflict mediation hypothesis for effects of family friendly management on organizational commitment and turnover intention. Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2008; 21(3):383–410.
4. Yoo GS, Choi HJ. Strategies to improve family-friendly policies of organizations in public sectors. Journal of Family Relations. 2009; 13(4):75–103.
5. Lee H. A study on the effects of family-friendly management on work-family compatability: The moderating effects of coping behavior and supervisor support [dissertation]. Gwangju: Chonnam National University;2012. p. 1–142.
6. Secret M, Sprang G. The effects of family-friendly workplace environments on work-family stress of employed parents. Journal of Social Service Research. 2002; 28(2):21–45. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v28n02_02.
crossref
7. Butts MM, Casper WJ, Yang TS. How important are work–family support policies? A meta-analytic investigation of their effects on employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2013; 98(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030389.
crossref
8. Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review. 1985; 10(1):76–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/258214.
crossref
9. Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Wayne JH, Grzywacz JG. Measuring the positive side of the work–family interface: Development and validation of a work–family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2006; 68(1):131–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.02.002.
crossref
10. Grzywacz JG, Carlson DS. Conceptualizing work—family balance: Implications for practice and research. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2007; 9(4):455–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422307305487.
crossref
11. Carlson DS, Grzywacz JG, Zivnuska S. Is work—family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations. 2009; 62(10):1459–1486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709336500.
crossref
12. Lee MY, Park MR, Park MM, Lee HJ, Jung EJ, Kim HJ. A study on the actual conditions of hospital nurse labor force in 2015 [Internet]. Seoul: Hospital Nurses Association;c2016. [cited 2016 Feb 19]. Available from:. http://khna.or.kr/web/information/resource.php.
13. Statistics Korea. Report on labor force survey at establishments [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;c2015. [cited 2018 Nov 7]. Available from:. http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=118&tblId=DT_118N_MONA31&conn_path=I2.
14. Cowin L. The effects of nurses’ job satisfaction on retention: An Australian perspective. The Journal of Nursing Administration. 2002; 32(5):283–291. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200205000-00008.
15. Park S. The relationship among hospital nurses’ perception of family friendly policies, work-family conflict, and retention intention [master’s thesis]. Seoul: Yonsei University;2015. p. 1–89.
16. Chen W, Zhang Y, Sanders K, Xu S. Family-friendly work practices and their outcomes in China: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment and the moderating role of gender. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2018; 29(7):1307–1329. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1195424.
crossref
17. Moon YJ. The effects of perceived family supportive organizational culture on job satisfaction and organizational commitment among social workers - with a focus on the mediating effects of work-family conflict and work-family enrichment -. Journal of Human Resource Management Research. 2014; 21(3):121–145. https://doi.org/10.14396/jhrmr.2014.21.3.121.
crossref
18. Wayne JH, Casper WJ, Matthews RA, Allen TD. Family-supportive organization perceptions and organizational commitment: The mediating role of work–family conflict and enrichment and partner attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2013; 98(4):606–622. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032491.
crossref
19. Jeon BR, Noh YG. Impact of work-family conflict and social support on retention intention among married female nurses. Journal of Digital Convergence. 2018; 16(10):261–270. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2018.16.10.261.
20. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill;1978. p. 421.
21. Allen TD. Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2001; 58(3):414–435. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774.
crossref
22. Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Williams LJ. Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2000; 56(2):249–276. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1713.
crossref
23. Kim MJ. The effect of nursing organizational culture on nurses’ intention of retention [master’s thesis]. Seoul: Hanyang University;2006. p. 1–66.
24. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986; 51(6):1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
crossref
25. Kim HY, Oh HG, Park SM. An empirical study on the effects of family friendly policies on work-family conflict in public and private organizations: With a focus on a moderating role of instrumental and emotional support from family. Korean Public Administration Quarterly. 2015; 27(2):483–513.
26. Yang D. Relationship between family-friendly systems and organization performance on sales per employee and voluntary turnover. Korean Journal of Management. 2017; 25(1):81–107.
27. Rajkonwar B, Rastogi M. The impact of work–family issues on turnover intentions among nurses? A study from North-Eastern India. Journal of Health Management. 2018; 20(2):164–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972063418763652.
crossref
28. Im JH. Female workers’ stress from nurturing with preschool children. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 2014; 14(5):132–143. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2014.14.05.132.
crossref
29. Kim JK, Yang JS. Analysis of the factors influencing work-family balance: A focus on the impact of social support. Korean Journal of Public Administration. 2012; 50(4):251–280.
30. Moazami-Goodarzi A, Nurmi JE, Mauno S, Aunola K, Ran-tanen J. Longitudinal latent profiles of work–family balance: Examination of antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management. 2019; 26(1):65–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000093.
crossref

Table 1.
Differences in the Study Variables by General Characteristics of Participants (N=307)
Variable Categories s n (%) Family friendly policy
 Family supportive work environment
 Work-family conflict
 Work-family enrichment
 Work-family balance
 Retention intention
M±SD t or F(p) M±SD t or F(p) M±SD t or F(p) M±SD t or F(p) M±SD t or F(p) M±SD t or F(p)
Age (yr) <30a 22 1.79± 23.51 2.96± 2.39 3.31± 6.84 3.20± 4.78 3.09± 5.39 4.95± 1.90
(7.1) 0.35 (<.001) 0.64 (.051) 0.76 (<.001) 0.59 (.001) 0.50 (<.001) 0.63 (.110)
30~<35b 76 1.92± a,b,c 2.79± 3.55± e<c,b 3.28± a,b<e 3.15± c,b<e 4.75±
(24.8) 0.35 <d,e 0.66 0.80 0.57 0.58 0.71
35~<40c 84 2.00± 2.77± 3.45± 3.43± 3.05± 4.97±
(27.4) 0.40 0.74 0.75 0.70 0.66 1.01
40~<45d 55 2.30± 3.06± 3.15± 3.49± 3.32± 4.95±
(17.9) 0.52 0.65 0.78 0.74 0.59 0.81
≥45e 70 2.49± 2.96± 2.97± 3.70± 3.46± 5.13±
(22.8) 0.51 0.55 0.71 0.61 0.59 0.79
Owner- Public 159 2.31± 6.77 3.02± 3.86 3.18± -2.89 3.48± 0.81 3.26± 1.01 4.86± -1.90
ship (51.8) 0.51 (<.001) 0.59 (<.001) 0.70 (.004) 0.66 (.418) 0.61 (.313) 0.84 (.059)
Private 148 1.95± 2.73± 3.48± 3.42± 3.18± 5.04±
(48.2) 0.42 0.71 0.66 0.66 0.62 0.82
Hospital Hospitala 104 2.46± 44.75 3.06± 10.17 3.11± 11.34 3.52± 1.44 3.25± 0.34 5.40± 1.10
classific- (33.8) 0.48 (<.001) 0.52 (<.001) 0.69 (<.001) 0.66 (.239) 0.59 (.712) 1.76 (.336)
ation GHb 119 1.99± c,b<a 2.90± c<b,a 3.24± a,b<c 3.38± 3.23± 5.46±
(38.8) 0.42 0.73 0.78 0.60 0.65 1.71
THc 84 1.92± 2.63± 3.63± 3.44± 3.18± 5.10±
(27.4) 0.42 0.65 0.82 0.75 0.61 1.76
Work Shift 184 2.08± 4.94 2.94± -1.74 3.40± -2.91 3.36± 2.93 3.12± 3.51 5.08± 3.10
type (59.9) 0.44 (<.001) 0.63 (.084) 0.75 (.004) 0.61 (.004) 0.57 (.001) 1.69 (.002)
Non-shift 123 2.36± 2.80± 3.15± 3.58± 3.36± 5.71±
(40.1) 0.53 0.71 0.81 0.71 0.65 1.80
Number 0a 61 1.87± 18.04 2.86± 2.20 3.40± 3.65 3.24± 7.56 3.17± 10.56 4.65± 5.79
of child (19.9) 0.39 (<.001) 0.66 (.113) 0.77 (.027) 0.58 (.001) 0.51 (<.001) 0.79 (.003)
1b 101 2.07± a<b/><c 2.79± 3.42± c<b 3.36± a,b<c 3.02± b<c 4.95± a<c
(32.9) 0.45 0.63 0.72 0.73 0.60 0.89
≥2c 145 2.29± 2.96± 3.18± 3.59± 3.38± 5.08±
(47.2) 0.52 0.69 0.83 0.62 0.63 0.79
Carer† Husbanda 94 2.30± 5.33 2.90± 0.12 3.30± 1.66 3.51± 1.60 4.12± 0.30 4.57± 0.19
(38.2) 0.54 (.005) 0.67 (.886) 0.55 (.192) 0.60 (.204) 0.91 (.740) 1.23 (.826)
Parentsb 110 2.08± b<a 2.86± 3.42± 3.37± 4.05± 4.48±
(44.7) 0.42 0.64 0.57 0.62 0.87 1.16
Othersc 42 2.25± 2.89± 3.26± 3.51± 3.99± 4.45±
(17.1) 0.55 0.76 0.59 0.74 1.10 1.38
Income <300a 91 2.10± 2.76 3.05± 4.62 3.25± 1.62 3.29± 5.28 3.10± 3.21 4.72± 6.61
(10,000 (29.7) 0.66 (.065) 0.66 (.011) 0.79 (.200) 0.56 (.006) 0.56 (.042) 0.73 (.002)
won) 300~<400 125 b 2.12± 2.77± b<a 3.40± 3.44± a<c 3.23± a<c 4.96± a<c
(40.6) 0.71 0.66 0.78 0.72 0.64 0.78
≥400c 91 2.32± 2.87± 3.22± 3.61± 3.33± 5.16±
(29.7) 0.68 0.65 0.79 0.65 0.62 0.96
Clinical <3a 56 2.40± 7.68 3.03± 3.19 3.16± 2.69 3.50± 3.85 3.22± 4.04 4.68± 3.99
career (18.2) 0.46 (<.001) 0.52 (.014) 0.72 (.031) 0.59 (.005) 0.57 (.003) 0.85 (.004)
(yr) 3~<5b 44 2.16± c,d<a 3.09± d<b 3.17± e<c 3.35± c<e 3.17± c,b,d<e 4.87± a<d
(14.3) 0.55 0.64 0.76 0.62 0.62 0.80
5~<10c 80 1.94± 2.87± 3.51± 3.26± 3.14± 4.84±
(26.1) 0.45 0.72 0.73 0.60 0.57 0.70
10~<20d 92 2.09± 2.73± 3.35± 3.53± 3.18± 5.15±
(30.0) 0.46 0.71 0.85 0.72 0.65 0.93
≥20e 35 2.20± 2.78± 3.11± 3.71± 3.60± 5.16±
(11.4) 0.52 0.55 0.80 0.72 0.60 0.71

a, b, c, d, and e represent sub-groups of each variable.

M=Mean; SD=Standard deviation; GH=General hospital; TH=Tertiary hospital.

† Post hoc: Scheffé test; n=246 (The number of participants who have children).

Table 2.
Scores for Family Friendly Management, Work-Family Interface and Retention Intention (N=307)
Variables Categories M±SD Range
Family friendly management Family friendly policy 2.19±1.10 1~4
Family supportive work environment 2.89±0.94 1~5
Work-family interface Work-family conflict 3.30±0.99 1~5
Work-family enrichment 3.45±0.68 1~5
Work-family balance 3.22±0.57 1~5
Retention intention 5.34±2.01 1~8

M=Mean; SD=Standard deviation.

Table 3.
Item-specific Analysis of Family Friendly Policy (N=307)
Items Implement
 Utilization†
Yes, n (%) No, n (%) Rarely, n (%) Partially, n (%) Fully, n (%)
Child-birth & 1. Childcare leave 297 (96.7) 10 (3.3) 5 (1.7) 66 (22.2) 226 (76.1)
Child-care support 2. Reduced working hour on parenting period 223 (72.6) 84 (27.4) 108 (48.4) 67 (30.1) 48 (21.5)
3. Maternity leave 304 (99.0) 3 (1.0) 5 (1.7) 35 (11.5) 264 (86.8)
4. Spouse maternity leave 261 (85.0) 46 (15.0) 70 (26.8) 90 (34.5) 101 (38.7)
5. Pregnant employee assistance program 134 (43.6) 173 (56.4) 45 (33.6) 44 (32.8) 45 (33.6)
6. Breastfeeding facility and lactation room 152 (49.5) 155 (50.5) 62 (40.8) 52 (34.2) 38 (25.0)
7. Child-tuition assistance 262 (85.3) 45 (14.7) 12 (4.6) 92 (35.1) 158 (60.3)
8. Employer-supported child care center 190 (61.9) 117 (38.1) 26 (13.7) 64 (33.7) 100 (52.6)
Flextime support 9. Flexible work hour policy 184 (59.9) 123 (40.1) 87 (47.3) 49 (26.6) 48 (26.1)
10. Flexible work time policy 156 (50.8) 151 (49.2) 67 (42.9) 46 (29.5) 43 (27.6)
11. Work from home remote work program 61 (19.9) 246 (80.1) 52 (85.3) 6 (9.8) 3 (4.9)
12. Short-time duty (Part-time duty) 138 (45.0) 169 (55.0) 64 (46.4) 39 (28.3) 35 (25.3)
13. Smart work 54 (17.6) 253 (82.4) 46 (85.2) 4 (7.4) 4 (7.4)
Family-friendly 14. Family-day 132 (43.0) 175 (57.0) 36 (27.3) 45 (34.1) 51 (38.6)
corporation culture 15. Family-friendly employee session 99 (32.2) 208 (67.8) 42 (42.4) 35 (35.4) 22 (22.2)
16. Workplace counselling program 189 (61.6) 118 (38.4) 85 (45.0) 79 (41.8) 25 (13.2)
17. Long serve leave (Refresh leave) 179 (58.3) 128 (41.7) 33 (18.5) 72 (40.2) 74 (41.3)
18. Family care leave 200 (65.1) 107 (34.9) 47 (23.5) 84 (42.0) 69 (34.5)
19. Family invitation event 107 (34.9) 200 (65.1) 49 (45.8) 48 (44.9) 10 (9.3)
20. Family medical check-up aid 166 (54.1) 141 (45.9) 26 (15.6) 77 (46.4) 63 (38.0)
21. Provision of recreation facilities 266 (86.6) 41 (13.4) 36 (13.5) 117 (44.0) 113 (42.5)
22. Workplace relocation for spouse relocation 98 (31.9) 209 (68.1) 34 (34.7) 47 (48.0) 17 (17.3)
23. Operation of family-participation program 110 (35.8) 197 (64.2) 30 (27.3) 61 (55.5) 19 (17.2)

† n=The number of participants who responded ‘Yes’ to the ‘Implement’.

Table 4.
Correlational Relationships among the Study Variables (N=307)
Variable x1
 x2
 x3
 x4
 x5
 x6
r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p) r (p)
Family friendly policy (x1) 1
Family supportive work environment (x2) .36 (<.001) 1
Work-family conflict (x3) -.40 (<.001) -.65 (<.001) 1
Work-family enrichment (x4) .39 (<.001) .35 (<.001) -.50 (<.001) 1
Work-family balance (x5) .36 (<.001) .39 (<.001) -.49 (<.001) .55 (<.001) 1
Retention intention (x6) .30 (<.001) .44 (<.001) -.53 (<.001) .48 (<.001) .52 (<.001) 1
Table 5.
Mediating Effect of Work-Family Interface in the Relationships between Family Friendly Management and Retention Intention (N=307)
Equations B β t p Adj. R2 F p tolerance VIF Durbin-Watson (dU)
1. FFP → WFC -0.63 -.40 -7.58 <.001 .16 57.53 <.001
2. FFP → RI 1.05 .30 5.50 <.001 .09 30.20 <.001
3. FFP, WFC → RI .29 63.40 <.001 1.85 (1.83)
  1) FFP → RI 0.36 .10 1.98 .049 .84 1.19
  2) WFC → RI -1.10 -.49 -9.38 <.001 .84 1.19
S Sobel test: Z=5.88, p<.001
1. FSWE → WFC -0.77 -.65 -14.85 <.001 .42 220.47 <.001
2. FSWE → RI 1.17 .44 8.67 <.001 .20 75.09 <.001
3. FSWE, WFC → RI .30 65.76 <.001 1.85 (1.83)
  1) FSWE → RI 0.45 .17 2.70 .007 .58 1.72
  2) WFC → RI -0.95 -.42 -6.74 <.001 .58 1.72
S Sobel test: Z=6.14, p<.001
1. FFP → WFE 0.52 .39 7.49 <.001 .15 56.08 <.001
2. FFP → RI 1.05 .30 5.50 <.001 .09 30.20 <.001
3. FFP, WFE → RI .24 49.07 <.001 1.94 (1.83)
  1) FFP → RI 0.46 .13 2.43 .016 .85 1.18
  2) WFE → RI 1.13 .43 7.87 <.001 .85 1.18
S Sobel test: Z=5.41, p<.001
1. FSWE → WFE 0.35 .35 6.54 <.001 .12 42.82 <.001
2. FSWE → RI 1.17 .44 8.67 <.001 .20 75.09 <.001
3. FSWE, WFE → RI .31 70.38 <.001 1.89 (1.83)
  1) FSWE → RI 0.83 .32 6.23 <.001 .88 1.14
  2) WFE → RI 0.98 .37 7.27 <.001 .88 1.14
S Sobel test: Z=4.89, p<.001
1. FFP → WFB 0.44 .36 6.70 <.001 .13 44.93 <.001
2. FFP → RI 1.05 .30 5.50 <.001 .09 30.20 <.001
3. FFP, WFB → RI .28 60.77 <.001 1.94 (1.83)
  1) FFP → RI 0.46 .13 2.51 .013 .87 1.15
  2) WFB → RI 1.35 .47 9.12 <.001 .87 1.15
S Sobel test: Z=5.39, p<.001
1. FSWE → WFB 0.36 .39 7.42 <.001 .15 55.01 <.001
2. FSWE → RI 1.17 .44 8.67 <.001 .20 75.09 <.001
3. FSWE, WFB → RI .34 78.09 <.001 1.90 (1.83)
  1) FSWE → RI 0.75 .29 5.62 <.001 .85 1.18
  2) WFB → RI 1.17 .41 8.08 <.001 .85 1.18
S Sobel test: Z=5.46, p<.001

FFP=Family friendly policy; FSWE=Family supportive work environment; WFC=Work-family conflict; WFE=Work-family enrichment; WFB=Work-family balance; RI=Retention intention; VIF=Variance inflation factor.

TOOLS
Similar articles