A Family-Friendly Policy for Employees: A Model for the Formation and Control of Efficiency in Modern Organizations of State and Municipal Administration

The environment, in which the social institution of state and municipal administration operates, is characterised by unfavorable demographic trends. In the sphere of state and municipal administration, we consider support for young families (and families with children of organisations’ employees) as a measure that will ensure the development and improvement of the demographic policy of the state. The employees’ family-friendly policy is aimed at satisfying the needs of family employees and, in addition to state assistance, is designed to target the needs of employees, who perform not only professional, but also parental functions. The article concerns the study of the potential of the family-friendly policy, in the sphere of state organisation and municipal administration. The research methodology is based on several key approaches, emphasizing the special value of the neo-institutional approach. These methods enlist the help of statistical analysis pertaining to sociological survey data. The information basis was the result of a sociological study, assessing the availability, demand, and implementation possibilities, of the potential effectiveness of measures friendly to families of state and municipal employment. In the Central Federal District of Russia between September 2023 – May 2024, more than 300 respondents were interviewed, selected from employees of public and municipal administration departments. This revealed that the state can successfully and comprehensively support public administration organisations in developing family-friendly policies at local level. Simultaneously, organisations themselves will act as one of the key agents of the state in implementing the general pro-natalist policy. The possibility of actively involving public administration organisations in the general pro-natalist policy is directly related to the need to finalize the existing regulatory framework with additional and corrective work. A model for developing a family-friendly policy is proposed, categorising individual groups with levels of control over the effectiveness of its policy implementation.

1. Bagirova A., Manukyan S. (2020) Corporate Demographic Policy as a Response to Country Wide Challenges for Business. Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance, ECMLG 2020. Oxford: EM-Normandie Business School. P. 16–23.

2. Bagirova A., Vavilova A. (2021) Supporting Demographic Policy: Evaluations and Opportunites. Human Progress. Vol. 7. No. 2. DOI: 10.34709/IM.172.3

3. Danilova E.N., Kozlova L.A., Kozyreva P.M., Oberemko O.A. (eds.) (2018) Sotsiologiya Yadova: metodologicheskiy razgovor [Yadov’s sociology: A methodological conversation]. Moscow: Novyy khronograf.

4. DiMaggio P., Powell W. (2014) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. In: Radayev V.V., Yudin G.B. (eds.) Klassika novoy ekonomicheskoy sotsiologii. Moscow: ID VShE. P. 164–191.

5. Gromova N. (2020) Personnel Loyalty as a Factor in Ensuring the Competitiveness of Russian companies. Sovremennaya konkurentsiya. Vol. 14. No. 2(78). P. 60–78. DOI: 10.37791/1993-7598-2020-14-2-60-72

6. Halinski M., Duxbury L. (2019) Workplace Flexibility and Its Relationship with Work-Interferes-With-Family. Personnel Review. Vol. 49. Is. 1 P. 149–166. DOI: 10.1108/PR-01-2019-0048

7. Magnusson С. (2019) Flexible Time — But Is the Time Owned? Family Friendly and Family Unfriendly Work Arrangements, Occupational Gender Composition and Wages: A Test of the Mother-Friendly Job Hypothesis in Sweden. Community, Work & Family. Vol. 24. Is. 3. P. 291–314. DOI: 10.1080/13668803.2019.1697644

8. Marinets I.N., Kalyugina S.N. (2009) Formirovaniye sotsial’no otvetstvennogo povedeniya: obshchenatsional’nyy i regional’nyy aspekty [Formation of socially responsible behavior: National and regional aspects]. Regional’naya ekonomika: teoriya i praktika. No. 31. P. 73–78.

9. Meyer J., Rowan B. (2011) Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 43–67.

10. Mullins L., Chabonneay E., Riccucci N. (2020) The Effects of Family Responsibilities Discrimination on Public Employees Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions: Can Flexible Work Arrangements Help? Review of Public Personnel Administration. Vol. 41. Is. 2. P. 384–410. DOI: 10.1177/0734371X19894035

11. Nekhoda E.V., Rakovskaya V.S. (2011) Corporate Social Policy: Conceptual Approaches to the Definition and to the Functioning Evaluation. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika. No. 4(16). P. 49–55.

12. Rostovskaya T.K., Shabunova A.A., Bagirova A.P. (2021) The Concept for Corporate Demographic Policy of Russian Enterprises in the Framework of Corporate Social Responsibility. Ekonomicheskiye i sotsial’nyye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz. Vol. 14. No. 5. P. 151–164. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2021.5.77.9