Search results

Purpose.To estimate the cost to the workplace of implementing initiatives to reduce work-family conflict.Design.Prospective cost analysis conducted alongside a group-randomized multisite controlled experimental study, using a microcosting approach.Setting.An information technology firm.Subjects.Employees (n = 1004) and managers (n = 141) randomized to the intervention arm.Intervention.STAR (Start. Transform. Achieve. Results.) to enhance employees' control over their work time, increase supervisor support for employees to manage work and family responsibilities, and reorient the culture toward results.Measures.A taxonomy of activities related to customization, start-up, and implementation was developed. Resource use and unit costs were estimated for each activity, excluding research-related activities.Analysis.Economic costing approach (accounting and opportunity costs). Sensitivity analyses on intervention costs.Results.The total cost of STAR was $709,654, of which $389,717 was labor costs and $319,937 nonlabor costs (including $313,877 for intervention contract). The cost per employee participation in the intervention was $340 (95% confidence interval: $330–$351); $597 ($561–$634) for managers and $300 ($292–$308) for other employees (2011 prices).Conclusion.A detailed activity costing approach allows for more accurate cost estimates and identifies key drivers of cost. The key cost driver was employees' time spent on receiving the intervention. Ignoring this cost, which is usual in studies that cost workplace interventions, would seriously underestimate the cost of a workplace initiative.

Purpose: To examine changes in organizations' workplace health promotion (WHP) initiatives over time associated with repeated self-assessment using the Well Workplace Checklist (WWC). Design: Well Workplace Checklist data include a convenience sample of US organizations that selected to assess their performance against quality WHP benchmarks. Setting: Workplaces. Subjects: In total, 577 US organizations completed the WWC in 2 or more years from 2008 to 2015. Measures: The WWC is a 100-item organizational assessment that measures performance against the original set of quality benchmarks that were established by the Wellness Council of America (WELCOA). Analysis: This study examined changes in overall WWC scores as well as 7 separate benchmark scores. Multilevel modeling was used to examine changes in scores associated with repeated assessments, controlling for the year of assessment and organizational characteristics. Results: There were significant increases in overall WWC scores (β = 2.93, P < .001) associated with the repeated WWC assessments, after controlling for organizational characteristics. All 7 benchmark scores had significant increases associated with reassessment. Compared to other benchmarks, operating plan (β = 6.18, P < .001) and evaluation (β = 4.91, P < .001) scores increased more with each reassessment. Conclusion: Continued reassessment may represent more commitment to and investment in WHP initiatives which could lead to improved quality. Other factors that may positively influence changes in performance against benchmarks include company size, access to outside resources for WHP, and a history with implementing WHP.

Purpose: To estimate the effects of a workplace initiative to reduce work–family conflict on employee performance. Design: A group-randomized multisite controlled experimental study with longitudinal follow-up. Setting: An information technology firm. Participants: Employees randomized to the intervention (n = 348) and control condition (n = 345). Intervention: An intervention, "Start. Transform. Achieve. Results." to enhance employees' control over their work time, to increase supervisors' support for this change, and to increase employees' and supervisors' focus on results. Methods: We estimated the effect of the intervention on 9 self-reported employee performance measures using a difference-in-differences approach with generalized linear mixed models. Performance measures included actual and expected hours worked, absenteeism, and presenteeism. Results: This study found little evidence that an intervention targeting work–family conflict affected employee performance. The only significant effect of the intervention was an approximately 1-hour reduction in expected work hours. After Bonferroni correction, the intervention effect is marginally insignificant at 6 months and marginally significant at 12 and 18 months. Conclusion: The intervention reduced expected working time by 1 hour per week; effects on most other employee self-reported performance measures were statistically insignificant. When coupled with the other positive wellness and firm outcomes, this intervention may be useful for improving employee perceptions of increased access to personal time or personal wellness without sacrificing performance. The null effects on performance provide countervailing evidence to recent negative press on work–family and flex work initiatives.