From Home to Corner Office: How Work–Life Programs Influence Women's Managerial Representation in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although researchers have suggested that work–life programs (WLPs) help increase the representation of women in management (WIM), stigmatization and gender stereotyping can prevent this beneficial effect. We adopt a contingency approach by taking the roles of time, gender context, and the purposes of different practices into consideration and examine the effects of WLPs on WIM longitudinally. Our analysis of a sample of Japanese public firms spanning 14 years addresses endogeneity concerns and shows that: (1) increases in WLPs are weakly associated with subsequent increases in the proportion of WIM within firms; (2) this positive effect is stronger in organizations where the percentage of female employees is growing; and (3) there is no evidence to suggest an effect in the opposite direction. We further propose different temporal patterns by which the effects of flexibility practices (e.g., remote work) and resource practices (e.g., childcare benefits) emerge due to the varying degree of changes in job structures and work norms involved in their implementation. Our analysis provides supportive evidence that the effects of flexibility practices that require more changes inconveniencing decision-makers, users, and coworkers take longer to emerge compared to resource practices that incur fewer changes and inconveniences. These findings contribute to a more detailed understanding of the WLPs–WIM relationship and offer insights for research on WLPs and women's career advancement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".