The other day I said to a friend that I was very skeptical of work life experts who suggest that women march right in and ask their employers for flexibility or part-time or other kinds of “work-life” accomodation. I suspect that for the average middle management employee this strategy would backfire, souring their relationship with their supervisor and company. I wish this weren’t so, but in today’s world most employees, especially women, are not valued enough to be able to make their own schedules. Ultimately, counseling women to ask for what company’s perceive as “special benefits” could hurt a lot of average Janes.
But, my friend countered, if women don’t rise up and demand a new work-life paradigm, how will we ever see change? A valid question.
In my mind there are five major shifts that need to happen to set the stage for a new, more productive and efficient work paradigm. Notice how I say “more productive and efficient” and not “better for work life balance?” That’s because I’m not talking about boosting benefits because it’s “fair” or “the right thing to do.” I’m talking about creating structures that fundamentally improve the way companies operate, making and saving them money.
1. Improve Technology. One of the greatest impediments to working flexibly is communication. Employers and employees alike worry that working remotely will lead to a disconnected work environment. These days, with email, Skype and smartphones, this concern should be minimized, but it isn’t because most companies haven’t invested the time or money to upgrade their remote access options. That doesn’t mean that we never need to meet — on the contrary, it gives us multiple options for more face to face meetings via the web. Upgrading technology to make more communication possible is crucial for work life change.
2. Build Redundancies. It may seem crazy to create redundancy in service to efficiency, but having multiple people able to do the same kinds of job is key to a healthy work environment. In recent years some companies have cut their staffs to the quick, pigeon-holing one person in a specific function. If that employee has to take leave or be out sick for even a day or two, the department is left hanging — this is part of the reason supervisors find it hard to be generous with maternity and other kinds of leave. In addition to creating a “bench” for the company, training staff for multiple job functions is rewarding for employees, giving them a chance to gain new and different skills. Building redundancy doesn’t have to cost a lot; while you may have to add staff, there may also be employees who are eager to take on additional responsibilities to enhance their resumes.
3. Rethink Work Life Policies. It would be ideal to mold work schedules to meet the needs of both individuals and their companies. The problem with the idea of a work life “policy” is that, by their very nature, corporate policies are inflexible. They don’t allow for the kind of customization and creativity that would truly meet the needs of both management and workers. Along these lines, no one flexible work arrangement should be seen as “precedent” for other employees. The idea that arranging one worker’s schedule to meet their needs should entitle all employees to the same arrangement holds everyone back. So what should the work life policy be? That everyone has the right to propose an alternate work schedule without discrimination — not that it’s always granted, but that it’s always considered without reprisal.
4. Get More Women in Power Positions. It’s a no-brainer. Once we have more people who need flexibility in senior management positions, it’s likely that things will change. Even though women are more than 50% of the workforce, they represent a tiny fraction of CEOs and corporate board members. We need to counsel our young women that they can have both a fulfilling career and a strong family — getting more of the skilled and educated to remain in the corporate world.
5. Take the Issue Out of the “Women’s Room.” I know, I just said getting more women into power positions would help — and I think it will. But the reality is that making work life a women and family issue has done us a disservice. If we think of work life strategies as ways to get the best out of employees, making companies more efficient and saving money in tunrover costs, we are more likely to see change. And as much as I hate to say it, women are not powerful enough alone in today’s corporate workforce to effect meaningful change. Companies have to start seeing work life as an additional path to productivity, not a family-friendly benefit.
Would love to hear from all of you about what changes you think need to happen to set the stage for “rebuilding the house of work.”
Related links:
- Chrysula Winegar at Work. Life. Balance. writes about tearing down the house of work.
- NPR just did a three-part series on the end of 9-to-5 work; I particularly liked this segment about a government workplace that is adopting a ROWE model.
- Interesting study from Cisco indicating that telecommuting increases productivity. I like the idea here, but have to consider the source — Cisco would greatly benefit from technology upgrades that would make remote work more possible.
- From Reuters: Firms say Work-Life Balance Increase Producvity.
Great post. I wish companies would see the value in allowing employees to set their schedules. I believe that if we had true flexibility (without reproach) more mothers would stay in the workforce, and many would reenter.
Many mothers want to work, but need the ability to set a specific schedule. We can do this while still doing quality work. Too many companies believe that if you offer a flexible schedule to one, then you won’t have anyone in the office because they all want to work from home. This simply isn’t the case. Not everyone wants to work from home.
You’ve articulated many of the key steps in a well-developed, well-executed business-based, work+life flexibility strategy, TMB! Right on the money.
Not sure if you saw my post deconstructing, and reframing the first segment of the NPR Work+Life segment, “Why NPRs Segment is Really About ‘Employers Make Room for Strategic Flexibility’ (Not Work-Life Balance) http://bit.ly/bQLnS9. It really is what all of this needs to be and has to be about. It’s starting to happen but our individual and organizational language, mindset and approach has to catch up.
What needs to set the stage to rebuild the house of work? Excellent question. I have two thoughts to throw into the melting pot.
First, I think that the foundations upon which the house of work is built need to be reviewed and challenged. This means looking at the fundamental bases of the notion of “the corporation”. As far as I understand, companies exist in law for two purposes: first, to make money for shareholders and second to survive at all costs. As organised work is currently conceptualised, it is a means to that end. For the most part the human resource is organised like other ancilliary resources: mechanistically and systematically. Much of the thinking has an engineering feel about it: it’s all about making things quantifiable and known. Job grades, pay scales, working hours, benefits … they all treat people as “things” that are to be understood and manipulated. Business language is laden with this mindset. Business owners and senior managers talk about how we are going to “motivate” our people to deliver.
The really radical thing is to challenge the legal bases of companies, but I don’t see that happening in the short term. Still, there needs to my mind to be some dialogue with the more forward-thinking CEOs about the biases that working off of the existing company paradigm set up. (Incidentally, it’s not just people who are objectified and marginalised by corporations: the same is true of other stakeholders including communities and the environment.) The smarter ones will begin to understand that they need to move from merely transacting with their precious resources to being in relationship with them; and to understand that this will only serve them and their businesses positively in the long term. This will begin to shift the psychological contract and so addressing what individuals need not just to survive, but to thrive in their jobs will become easier.
Second, I support your idea of having more women in power positions, but for me the thing is not JUST that the male/female balance is currently wrong; it’s the masculine/feminine thing too that’s adrift. The world of work is currently too masculine. What I mean by this is that it favours the masculine qualities of logic, analysis, time-structuring, black and white decision making, structure, plans, and control, over the more feminine ones of intuition, creativity, receptivity, spontaneity and instinct. It’s rigid and needs softness to balance it. It has no time for “seasons”, for energetic peaks and troughs. It is always “on”.
In my opinion, not only do more women need to get into more powerful positions, but also it needs to be okay for both men and women to bring both their masculine and feminine qualities to work. A lot of the coaching work I do supports both men and women, but particularly women to use their smarts, powerfully hold senior positions AND not give away the fundamental femininity that sets them apart as different and allows for a different energy and a different voice to be experienced
I know that these thoughts are pretty radical, but I think the current challenges call for radical solutions.
Mama Bee, a great post. There’s so much here, both in the post and comments, so I’ll just focus on the building redundancies section. This issue, at it’s core, is linked to Christine’s comments about how companies function at the shareholder return level. Headcount. Operational budgets. Cut those heads, cut that budget = happy Wall St analysts.
And yet every conversation I have about burned out, angry teams come back to this issue. “I’m doing three people’s jobs”, “this job description is unsustainable and un-doable”, “they’ve cut the team to bare bones and all it takes is for one person to be sick or on vacation and we’re in a total mess”.
Companies are not obligated to recruit people to sit around and do nothing all day. Having a job is a privilege and particularly for small businesses running lean operations, that extra headcount is all the different between profit and loss each year. I get it.
But requiring as the price of the job, people to daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, undertake multiple jobs (without calling it that) is foolish on a purely commercial level, if nothing else. You leave your business vulnerable and exposed. And you trash your greatest resource.
It does all come back to productivity. It has to within the current framework of how business is done. And within that lens, destroying your greatest resource on a regular basis is never a good idea.
I share your skepticism about the so-called experts. I hear from work-life coaches all the time who counsel women to simply demand flexibility. Their advice: make a compelling case and the boss can’t say no. Oh yes he can. And he can file away those demands in his mental file too to be accessed every time he thinks about you and your career.
This doesn’t mean we give up. We just need to be more savvy than the outside consultants might lead us to believe. You’ve outlined five great strategies.
In Sweden, work-family balance is based on gender equity, meaning that men are not only entitled to a paternity leave, they must take it. Over here in Quebec, it seems we are also heading in that direction, meaning that men are part of the equation to work-life balance. If this is only a women’s issue, it will remain a women’s issue and this will not be a good bet in the long run. Having children is not a women’s only issue. It’s a society issue.
And I must add : overhere, we have trouble finding good employees and this little crisis might be a good timing to negociate better work-life-family policies. One political party is even considering to force corporations to have a work-life-family policy. It’s not won yet, but the idea is in the air…
However, when I look at « mother’s issues» everywhere, I feel they should be translated into « parenting issues » and the whole work-life-family balance should become an international quest because at the end, the well-being of parents will reflect on the well-being of children everywhere around the world.
I hope my English is understandable…I’m so French…
Pingback: Sharing Sunday, March 21, 2010 | Cube Rules