Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Work-Life Balance: An Eye on the Future Richard A. MacKinnon CPsychol CSci AFBPsS, Talent Q Overview First Principles: What is Work? What is Family? What is Balance? Development of the Work-Life Balance concept Relevance of Work-life Balance European Work-life Balance Contemporary Risk Factors in the workplace Looking to the Future First Principles A Cynical View… The Issue of Language Terminology has evolved as the research focus has developed This has resulted in some confusing and inaccurate terminology in professional and public literature. Conflating terms such as: Work-life balance Work-family balance Work-family conflict Interference, Spillover, etc. etc. The Issue of Language Ozbilgin et al’s (2010) critique of the positivist framework of previous research point to its limited scope of what “family” and “work” represent. They highlight these as “blind spots” in worklife research. Geurts and Demerouti (2003) point out that there is little agreement as to what constitutes “work” and “non-work”. The contemporary work domain is not as distinct from the nonwork domain, either spatially or temporally. These previously distinct domains and roles have become increasingly interrelated. What is Work? Traditional definitions of “work” involve reference to structured, paid employment (e.g. Warr, 2002). However, such references exclude effort-related activity that is done outside of formal employment. An example here would be the selection of domestic chores that are done in most households on a weekly basis (e.g. cleaning, gardening). What about unpaid, volunteering activities? Psychological versus Physical work? What is Work? Geurts and Demerouti (2003) point out that there is little agreement as to what constitutes “work” and “non-work”. The contemporary work domain is not as distinct from the nonwork domain, either spatially or temporally. These previously distinct domains and roles have become increasingly interrelated. What is “Family”? Much of the existing literature uses a narrow and overly traditional definition of “family”. This excludes those individuals for whom home life does not conform to the traditional concept of nuclear family (i.e. a cohabiting, married man and women with children). For example: single-parent families, same-sex relationships (whether formally state-recognised or not; whether involving the raising of children or not), childless couples and, of course, single people without any caring responsibilities whatsoever. Places emphasis on home life, to the exclusion of life outside of work and the home (e.g. recreation, development, social). What is Balance? The term “balance” is also problematic “Balance” suggests a 50/50 split between work and home life, a ratio that may not suit everyone Suggests that balance between the two domains is possible, even desirable. Lewis (2003) points to work-life integration: A dynamic and ongoing process Moen and Hernandez (2009): “balance” places the focus on the individual’s challenges, rather than on societal or organisational issues which place the individual in an undesirable position in the first place. Development of the Concept From there to here: Women at Work Interest in WLB really began in the 1960s Growth of service sector Social liberalisation A focus on the impact of women’s employment on the home domain Balancing the demands of work and home Maintaining dual responsibilities No change to the traditional division of labour in the home Women moving into jobs created by – and for – men. From there to here: Women at Work 1970s – growth in provision of childcare facilities 1980s – growth in the Employee Assistance Programme 1990s – WLB as a critical factor for job-seekers (of both genders) A parallel development of the legislation that protects women at work The Contemporary European Workplace Three factors combine to increase the risk to employees: The demographic make-up of the modern workforce in Europe Changes to the nature of work itself The impact of information technology Demographics More dual-income couples More people caring for elder relatives The ‘sandwich’ generation An ageing workforce A more diverse workforce Changes to the Nature of Work The work domain changing significantly Less temporally static Less geographically static The knowledge economy Increased flexibility for some employees BUT: don’t forget more traditional roles The Impact of Information Technology Advancements in communications technology Phones, Blackberrys, laptops More work conducted “on the move” and at home Technology as a “double-edged sword” We’re not designed to be “always on” Much of this technology is not designed for constant use The Relevance of Work-life Balance Relevance of Work-Life Balance National Organisational Individual • Culture • Economy • Culture • Job Design • • • • Gender Sexual Orientation Caring Responsibilities Relationship Status The Individual Level Work is an important determinant of health and wellbeing. Research into occupational stress has long highlighted the interface between work and home as a potential stressor (e.g. Karasek, 1979; Karasek, 1998; Godin, 2003; Siegrist, 2001). Dissatisfaction with, and imbalance between, work and personal demands have been implicated in the pathology of several negative outcomes at the individual level. The Individual Level MacEwan and Barling (1994) demonstrated the link between increased imbalance and increased risk of anxiety and depression Joyce et al (2010) illustrated that flexible working alternatives (e.g. self-scheduling) are associated with improvements in physical health (e.g. lowered blood pressure, improved sleep quality) and mental health (e.g. reduced psychological stress). Frone (2000) found that both work-to-family and family-to-work conflict were: “...positively related to having a mood, anxiety, and substance dependence disorder. Depending on the type of work-family conflict and type of disorder, employees who reported experiencing workfamily conflict often were 1.99-29.66 times more likely than were employees who reported no work-family conflict to experience a clinically significant mental health problem.” The Organisational Level Organisational Culture dictates what is acceptable “How we do things here” Line Managers interpret and deploy policy Leaders are models for all other managers There will always be constraints on flexibility Organisational innovation required Organisational and employee perspectives not always aligned The Organisational Level “Work-to-family conflict” has been identified as a cause of decreased job satisfaction (Rice et al, 1992) and subjective career success (Peluchette, 1993). Employees’ organisational commitment has been found to increase with work-to- family conflict (e.g. Netemeyer et al, 1996). Greenhaus et al (1997) found that increased work-to-family conflict negatively impacted organisational turnover (i.e. it increased). Job performance can also be negatively impacted by work-to-family conflict (e.g. Frone, Yardley and Markel, 1997). Impact at the National Level Very difficult to measure accurately £billions lost in productivity due to stress in the UK Cause of stress not consistently measured Aside from productivity, impact on health services Exit of key (female) talent from workforce So what does “European” WLB look like? Eurofound (2010) identified large differences across EU and accession states in terms of: Provision of social welfare Attitudes to working mothers Proportion of women in the workforce Size of the public sector Gender-based division of labour in the home Reported average weekly working hours Perceived job security Looking to the Future Methodological Issues WLB research has been criticised for some common methodological shortcomings (e.g. Casper et al, 2007, Schultheiss, 2006, Ozbilgin et al, 2010). Over-reliance on cross-section, quantitative methodology The use of poor measures A uni-directional focus Un-representative participant groups A focus on negative outcomes Adopting an Ecological Systems approach Grzywacz and Marks (2000) critiqued earlier conceptualisations of the links between work and home as being “deterministic”. They turned to Ecological Systems theory, advanced by developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner: Micro-system Meso-system Exo-system Macro-system National Organisational Individual • Culture • Economy • Culture • Job Design • • • • Gender Sexual Orientation Caring Responsibilities Relationship Status Domain-Interaction approaches Emphasises interaction between work and non-work domains and considers the relationships between domains from a bidirectional perspective (work can influence home as well as vice versa). Simultaneously considers how the domains can impact each other positively as well as negatively. Moves away from a simplistic uni-directional (usually work-tohome) focus, which pre-supposes domain conflict. Domain-Interaction approaches The model proposes four potential interactions: Negative work-to-home (NWHI) Positive work-to-home (PWHI) Negative home-to-work (NHWI) Positive home-to- work (PHWI). It does not pre-suppose either the direction or the nature of the interaction Pos. Work Neg. Work Pos. Home Neg. Home WorkLife Balance A Need to Accommodate Diversity More women at work More older employees Diverse families / relationships / caring responsibilities Move beyond the constraints of legislation The ‘Singles-Friendly’ Work Culture Summary It’s not really about ‘Balance’ An Ecological Systems Perspective provides us with a more holistic view of the work-life balance concept. The role of organisational culture is key when considering work-life balance. Employers should exhibit increased sensitivity to the diversity issues related to WLB