Exploring Human Resource Managers’ Decision-Making Process for Workplace Breastfeeding-Support Benefits Following the Passage of the Affordable Care Act
- 106 Downloads
Objectives To explore factors that shape decisions made regarding employee benefits and compare the decision-making process for workplace breastfeeding support to that of other benefits. Methods Sixteen semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with Human Resource Managers (HRMs) who had previously participated in a breastfeeding-support survey. A priori codes were used, which were based on a theoretical model informed by organizational behavior theories, followed by grounded codes from emergent themes. Results The major themes that emerged from analysis of the interviews included: (1) HRMs’ primary concern was meeting the needs of their employees, regardless of type of benefit; (2) offering general benefits standard for the majority of employees (e.g. health insurance) was viewed as essential to recruitment and retention, whereas breastfeeding benefits were viewed as discretionary; (3) providing additional breastfeeding supports (versus only the supports mandated by the Affordable Care Act) was strongly influenced by HRMs’ perception of employee need. Conclusions for Practice Advocates for improved workplace breastfeeding-support benefits should focus on HRMs’ perception of employee need. To achieve this, advocates could encourage HRMs to perform objective breastfeeding-support needs assessments and highlight how breastfeeding support benefits all employees (e.g., reduced absenteeism and enhanced productivity of breastfeeding employee). Additionally, framing breastfeeding-support benefits in terms of their impact on recruitment and retention could be effective in improving adoption.
KeywordsBreastfeeding Workplace Affordable Care Act Qualitative methods Human Resource Managers
Thank you to all Human Resource Managers who participated for their valuable insight.
The authors disclose no financial support for this research.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
- Alb, C. H., Theall, K., Jacobs, M. B., & Bales, A. (2017). Awareness of United States’ Law for nursing mothers among employers in New Orleans, Louisiana. Women’s Health Issues: Official Publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health, 27(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2016.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- American Academy of Pediatrics. (2012). Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/02/22/peds.2011-3552.
- American Factfinder. (2016). Retrieved May 7, 2018, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
- Anderson, J., Kuehl, R. A., Drury, S. A. M., Tschetter, L., Schwaegerl, M., Hildreth, M., et al. (2015). Policies aren’t enough: The importance of interpersonal communication about workplace breastfeeding support. Journal of Human Lactation, 31(2), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334415570059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Breastfeeding report card: Progressing toward national breastfeeding goals. Retrieved June 7, 2018, from http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/reportcard.htm.
- DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2007). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and numbers. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 473–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hojnacki, S. E., Bolton, T., Fulmer, I. S., & Olson, B. H. (2012). Development and piloting of an instrument that measures company support for breastfeeding. Journal of Human Lactation: Official Journal of International Lactation Consultant Association, 28(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334411430666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kozhimannil, K. B., Jou, J., Gjerdingen, D. K., & McGovern, P. M. (2016). Access to workplace accommodations to support breastfeeding after passage of the Affordable Care Act. Women’s Health Issues: Official Publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health, 26(1), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2015.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morgan, M. G. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- NVivo qualitative data analysis software. (2012). (version 10). QSR International Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
- Richards, L. (2014). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. Sage. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CR-JCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=handling+qualitative+data+richards&ots=sri7lKxCxM&sig=0vpG6GIwilNSeALde0h2KWSWeNc.
- Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, 37, 460–484.Google Scholar
- Society for Human Resource Management. (2017). SHRM customized employee benefits prevalence benchmarking report. Retrieved May 7, 2018, from https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/business-solutions/Documents/Benefits-Prevalence-Report-All-Industries-All-FTEs.pdf.
- The Business Case for Breastfeeding: Steps for Creating a Breastfeeding Friendly Worksite. (2008). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.womenshealth.gov/files/documents/bcfb_business-case-for-breastfeeding-for-business-managers.pdf.
- Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175–190). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). 2016 Current Population Survey.Google Scholar
- US Goverment. (2010). Patient protection and affordable care act, Pub. Law 111-148, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), Pub. Law 111-152.Google Scholar