Управленец

2218-5003

2686-7923

10.29141/2218-5003-2025-16-6-7

BTTILP

https://upravlenets.usue.ru/ru/-2025/1770

Корпоративные стандарты поддержки работающих родителей и оценка эффектов внедрения гибких форматов занятости

Corporate standards for supporting working parents and effects of implementing flexible work arrangements

Тонких

Наталья Владимировна

Тонких

Наталья Владимировна

Tonkikh

Natalya V.

tonkihnv@usue.ruКамарова

Татьяна Александровна

Камарова

Татьяна Александровна

Kamarova

Tatyana A.

kta@usue.ruМаркова

Татьяна Леонидовна

Маркова

Татьяна Леонидовна

Markova

Tatyana L.

markova_tl@usue.ru

Ural State University of Economics (Ekaterinburg, Russia)Уральский государственный экономический университет (г. Екатеринбург, РФ)

16012026

1661061251510202520102025

CC BY-NC 4.0

В условиях демографических вызовов для российской экономики актуальна задача интеграции национальной политики поддержки работающих родителей в корпоративные практики управления персоналом. Исследование направлено на эмпирическую оценку эффектов и барьеров внедрения семейно ориентированных гибких форматов работы в корпоративные стандарты поддержки работников с родительскими обязанностями. Методологическая база исследования основана на пересечении теорий ролей, рационального выбора и неоинституционализма. Информационной базой послужили результаты экспертного опроса представителей 641 компании Уральского экономического района. Анализ экспертных мнений проводился методами описательной статистики, включая расчет средних значений и применение критерия Краскела – Уоллиса. Кластеризация рекомендаций экспертов по тематическим направлениям осуществлялась методом нарративного анализа. Выявлена низкая информированность работодателей о содержании национального Корпоративного демографического стандарта. Распространенность корпоративных инициатив поддержки сотрудников с семейными обязанностями выше в крупных компаниях по сравнению со средними и малыми организациями. Внедрение гибкого графика, неполного рабочего дня и дистанционного формата работы обеспечивает ряд преимуществ: снижение текучести кадров, рост лояльности персонала и эффективности труда. Эксперты отмечают слабое, но положительное влияние гибких условий труда на мотивацию к рождению детей. Выявлены барьеры внедрения семейно ориентированных практик: сложности в организации индивидуальных графиков работы, технологические ограничения и рост недовольства среди сотрудников без родительских обязанностей. Предлагаемая модель интеграции семейно ориентированных форматов труда в политику управления персоналом может быть использована в корпоративных социальных программах.

Amid current demographic pressures, the Russian economy faces the need to integrate national working-parent support policies into corporate HR management practices. The study seeks to provide an empirical evaluation of both effects and barriers to the implementation of family-oriented flexible work arrangements within corporate standards for supporting employees with parental responsibilities. The research methodology builds on role theory, rational choice model, and new institutionalism. At the empirical level, we carried out an expert survey involving representatives of 641 companies in the Ural economic region. Expert assessments were analysed using the methods of descriptive statistics, such as mean values and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Narrative analysis was applied to cluster the expert recommendations by areas of support. The findings reveal that employers are poorly informed about the provisions of the national Corporate Demographic Standard. Corporate initiatives to support staff with family responsibilities are more prevalent in large companies compared to medium-sized and small firms. Implementing flexible schedules, part-time work, and remote work offers several advantages, namely reduced employee turnover, increased staff loyalty, and improved labour productivity. The results show that flexible work arrangements have a limited, though still positive, impact on fertility motivation. Among the barriers to implementing family-oriented practices are: difficulties in organising individual work schedules, technological constraints, and potential increased dissatisfaction among employees without parental responsibilities. The proposed model for integrating family-oriented work arrangements into HR management policy can be used in corporate social programmes.

Корпоративный демографический стандарт;корпоративная социальная ответственность;семейно-ориентированные HR-практики;гибкие форматы работы;сотрудники с семейными обязанностями;работодатели.

the Corporate Demographic Standard;corporate social responsibility;family-oriented HR practices;flexible work arrangements;employees with family responsibilities;employers.

Статья подготовлена при финансовой поддержке гранта Российского научного фонда № 22-18- 00614-П «Исследование влияния цифровой занятости на рождаемость и родительское благополучие» (https://rscf.ru/ project/22-18-00614/).

This research was prepared with the financial support of the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 22-18-00614-P “An investigation into the impact of digital employment on birthrate and parental well-being” (https://rscf.ru/project/22-18-00614/).

Багирова А.П. (2025). Корпоративная гражданственность в демографической сфере как новая тема исследований в современной России // Народонаселение. Т. 28, № 1. С. 27–39. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2025-1-27-39

Багирова А.П., Вавилова А.С., Бледнова Н.Д. (2024). Корпоративная демографическая политика как инструмент реализации стратегических интересов государства, бизнеса и персонала // Экономические и социальные перемены: факты, тенденции, прогноз. Т. 17, № 3. С. 137–153. https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2024.3.93.8

Гокова О.В. (2025). Корпоративная социальная ответственность бизнеса в контексте поддержки семей, имеющих детей или планирующих их рождение // Известия высших учебных заведений. Социология. Экономика. Политика. Т. 18, № 1. С. 38–47. https://doi.org/10.31660/1993-1824-2025-1-38-47

Ростовская Т.К., Шабунова А.А., Багирова А.П. (2021). Концепция корпоративной демографической политики российских организаций в контексте социальной ответственности бизнеса // Экономические и социальные перемены: факты, тенденции, прогноз. Т. 14, № 5. С. 151–164. https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2021.5.77.9

Тонких Н.В., Чудиновских М.В., Бегичева С.В. (2024). Интеграция гибких инструментов корпоративной демографической политики в систему управления персоналом // Управленец. Т. 15, № 5. С. 87–102. https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003- 2024-15-5-6

Allen T.D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 58, issue 3, pp. 414–435. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774

Aryee S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, vol. 45, issue 8, pp. 813–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500804

Baek K., Kelly E.L., Jang Y.S. (2012). Work–family policies in Korean organizations: Human resources management and institutional explanations. Asian Business & Management, vol. 11, pp. 515–539. https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2012.20

Bagirova A., Shubat O. (2022). Regional models of corporate sector development in Russia: Where does family-friendly policy matter most? (A study based on cluster analysis) (pp. 58–63). In: I.A. Hameed, A. Hasan, S.A.-A. Alaliyat. (Eds.). Proc. of the 36th ECMS Int. conf. on modelling and simulation “Communications of the ECMS” (Ålesund, May 30 – June 3, 2022). Saarbrücken: Digitaldruck Pirrot. https://doi.org/10.7148/2022-0058

Beauregard T.A., King K.A. (2020). “Bring in Your Parents Day”: Building inclusion and engagement through a cross-generational family-friendly workplace initiative. Strategic HR Review, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-07-2019-0058

Bello B.G., Tula S.T., Omotoye G.B., Kess-Momoh A.J., Daraojimba A.I. (2024). Work-life balance and its impact in modern organizations: An HR review. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, vol. 21, issue 1, pp. 1162–1173. https://doi. org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.0106

Bourhis A., Mekkaoui R. (2010). Beyond work-family balance: Are family-friendly organizations more attractive? Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 98–117. https://doi.org/10.7202/039529ar

Caillier J.G. (2016). Does satisfaction with family-friendly programs reduce turnover? A panel study conducted in U.S. federal agencies. Public Personnel Management, vol. 45, issue 3, pp. 284–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026016652424

Carroll A.B., Shabana K.M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 12, issue 1, pp. 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x

Casper W.J., Weltman D., Kwesiga E. (2007). Beyond family-friendly: The construct and measurement of singles-friendly work culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 70, issue 3, pp. 478–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.01.001

Castles F.G. (2003). The world turned upside down: Below replacement fertility, changing preferences and family-friendly public policy in 21 OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 13, issue 3, pp. 209–227. https://doi. org/10.1177/09589287030133001

Choi J.H., Ahn S.H. (2017). The relationship among family-friendly policies, work-life, family-life, and intention of childbirth. Journal of Families and Better Life, vol. 35, issue 2, pp. 77–92. https://doi.org/10.7466/JKHMA.2017.35.2.77

Damayanti R., Sunarti E., Muflikhati I. (2025). The strategic role of family-friendly policies in enhancing subjective family wellbeing in dual-earner families: A quantitative approach. The Journal of Indonesia Sustainable Development Planning, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 185–201. https://doi.org/10.46456/jisdep.v6i2.725

Davis A.E., Kalleberg A.L. (2006). Family-friendly organizations? Work and family programs in the 1990s. Work and Occupations, vol. 33, issue 2, pp. 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888405280446

Dilmaghani M. (2021). There is a time and a place for work: Comparative evaluation of flexible work arrangements in Canada. International Journal of Manpower, vol. 42, issue 1, pp. 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-12-2019-0555

Eisenberg J., Krishnan A. (2018). Addressing virtual work challenges: Learning from the field. Organization Management Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15416518.2018.1471976

Erdem R., Keklik B. (2013). Beyond family-friendly organizations: Life friendly organizations – Organizational culture of life friendly organizations. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 102–113.

Fiksenbaum L.M. (2014). Supportive work-family environments: Implications for work-family conflict and well-being. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 653–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.796314

Hammer L.B., Neal M.B., Newsom J.T., Brockwood K.J., Colton C.L. (2005). A longitudinal study of the effects of dual-earner couples’ utilization of family-friendly workplace supports on work and family outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 799–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.799

Katsamba D. (2023). Work-life balance and employee productivity: Intervention in service organizations. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 109–128. https://doi.org/10.20474/jabs-9.2.5

Li Z.-D., Zhang B. (2023). Family-friendly policy evolution: A bibliometric study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 10, 303.

Marica M.-E. (2019). On call (zero-hour) contractual arrangements: A new form of employment. Elements of compared law. Juridical Tribune, vol. 9, issue 1, pp. 70–78.

Medina-Garrido J.A., Biedma-Ferrer J.M., Sánchez-Ortiz J. (2020). I can’t go to work tomorrow! Work-family policies, well-being and absenteeism. Sustainability, vol. 12, issue 14, 5519. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145519

Oliver C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 145–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/258610

Perry-Smith J.E., Blum T.C. (2000). Work-family human resource bundles and perceived organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1107–1117.

Poelmans S., Sahibzada K. (2004). A multi-level model for studying the context and impact of work–family policies and culture in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, vol. 14, issue 4, pp. 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. hrmr.2004.10.003

Soga L.R., Bolade-Ogunfodun Y., Mariani M., Nasr R., Laker B. (2022). Unmasking the other face of flexible working practices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, vol. 142, pp. 648–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.024

Taparia M., Lenka U. (2022). Family friendly policies: A double-edged sword? Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 54, issue 2, pp. 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-05-2021-0034

Trask B.S. (2017). Alleviating the stress on working families: Promoting family-friendly workplace policies. National Council on Family Relations Policy Brief, vol. 2, issue 1, pp. 1–6.

Tudy R.A. (2021). From the corporate world to freelancing: The phenomenon of working from home in the Philippines. Community, Work & Family, vol. 24, issue 1, pp. 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2020.1809994

Tutton J., Brand V. (2023). Should business have ‘a sense of morality’?: Company director views on corporate engagement with socio-political issues. Public Relations, vol. 49, issue 1, 102278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102278

Waples E.P., Brock Baskin M.E. (2021). Not your parents’ organization? Human resource development practices for sustainable flex work environments. Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 23, issue 2, pp. 153–170. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1523422320982933

Yu R., Burke M., Raad N. (2019). Exploring impact of future flexible working model evolution on urban environment, economy and planning. Journal of Urban Management, vol. 8, issue 3, pp. 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2019.05.002

Bagirova A.P. (2025). Corporate citizenship in the demographic sphere as a new research topic in modern Russia. Narodonaselenie / Population, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 27–39. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2025-1-27-39. (in Russ.)

Bagirova A.P., Vavilova A.S., Blednova N.D. (2024). Corporate demographic policy as a tool for implementing the strategic interests of the state, business and employees. Ekonomicheskie i sotsialnye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz / Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 137–153. https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2024.3.93.8. (in Russ.)

Gokova O.V. (2025). Corporate social responsibility in the context of supporting families with children or planning to have children. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Sotsiologiya. Ekonomika. Politika / Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Sociology. Economics. Politics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 38–47. https://doi.org/10.31660/1993-1824-2025-1-38-47. (in Russ.)

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. Ekonomicheskie i sotsialnye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz / Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 151–164. https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2021.5.77.9. (in Russ.)