Implementing Work-Life Balance Initiative - Essay Example

Running Head: IMPLEMENTING WORK-LIFE BALANCE INITIATIVE Implementing Work-Life Balance Initiative Implementing Work-Life Balance Initiative Introduction Demographic shifts, such as the influx of women into the workforce and the aging of the population, have prompted employers to focus greater attention on providing supports for employees lives outside of work, particularly dependent care responsibilities (James, 2009). The need to retain quality women workers and concerns over gender equity and diversity led some organisations to adopt workplace initiatives such as dependent care resource and referral, employee assistance programs (EAPs), and flexible work arrangement policies and practices. Organisations adopting such policies and practices are commonly known as "family-friendly" workplaces. The family­ friendly workplace develops systems for organising how work is arranged in order to support workers in achieving a greater integration across their work and personal responsibilities. More formally, a family-friendly workplace "recognises the non­-workplace family responsibilities of its employees and develops and implements policies that allow employees to simultaneously fulfill work and family responsibilities" (Strachan & Burgess, 1998, p. 251). These policies are considered to be a major recruitment and retention tool. What is Work-life Balance? Ezzedeen (2003) defined work-life balance from a holistic, individual domain perspective, as the degree to which individuals are satisfied with their involvement in domains of life they value. Work-life balance is understood as a satisfactory temporal, cognitive, and physical participation in the domain (s) in which one finds meaning, fulfillment and enjoyment (Ezzedeen, 2003). Work-life balance acknowledges that all employees have lives outside of work. Work-life balance illuminates traditional cultural assumptions about gender roles that shape mens and womens experiences in and out ofthe workplace (Redman and Wilkinson, 2006). It challenges the public/private dichotomy of roles and responsibilities by acknowledging that the sex and gender system operates differently in mens and womens lives; such that a man may be stigmatised for taking leave to care for a newborn in much the same way that a woman will be stigmatised for choosing to work after a baby is born. Rapoport, Bailyn, Fletcher, and Pruitt (2002) explain: "Accepting that individual priorities differ, our goal is that men and women should be able to experience these two parts of their lives as not in conflict, or separate, or in need of balance, but integrated. By this we mean that they should be able to function and find satisfaction in both work and personal life, independent of the amount of time they actually spend in each domain at different stages of their lives" (p. 17). The conceptualisation of work/personal-life integration provides a framework to deepen our understanding ofthe dynamic relationship between the worker, the workplace, and the community contexts in which they are operating. The work-life integration model is an important theoretical development in the work-life field because it calls for new ways of thinking about how work is organised without it being assigned to specific individuals or family configurations. Work-life integration inherently emphasises diversity and acknowledges that the "one size fits all" traditional model of work is outdated and is not realistic given the changing demographic and cultural profiles of work and family (Ragins & Verbos, 2007). Moreover, it calls for research that is situated within work organisations in order to facilitate necessary change. Border Theory According to border theory, work and family are considered to be separate domains, with individuals crossing over the borders of each proactively in order to create a meaningful state of balance (Clark, 2002). Borders are, "lines of demarcation between domains" and can be either physical (walls or other physical characteristics of a space that contribute to domain relevant behaviours), temporal (work hours that demarcate time spent in work tasks or family tasks), or psychological (as in "rules that are created to dictate when thinking patterns, behaviour patterns and emotions are appropriate for one domain and not the other"; Clark, 2000, p. 756). Borders have several properties that impact experiences of balance by border crossers: permeability, flexibility, blending, and strength. Permeability refers to how open a domains border is to allow in elements from the other domain. A flexible border is one in which "contracts or expands, depending on the demands of one domain or the other" (p. 757), such as flex-time or flex-place. One study in support of border theory examines communication as an activity utilised by border crossers to balance their work and family responsibilities. Clark (2002) explains, "These types of conversations are one essential part of the way that individuals enact their work/home environments, negotiating with others, building awareness of other-domain responsibilities, and ultimately creating meaning out of their experience" (p. 25). In her research, Clark (2002) found that permeable and flexible borders at work were associated with greater across the border communication; meaning that when the work domain had more permeable and flexible borders, there was greater communication about home life. Overall, findings pointed to greater communication across the home border, but when work borders were flexible and permeable, particularly with supervisors, there was more open communication about home life. In a study of biotechnology workers, researchers similarly found a correlation between supportive communication and job satisfaction (Lambert, Kass, Piotrowski, & Vodanovich, 2006). An important assumption of border theory is that people have different preferences about the degree of permeability and flexibility of work and family borders (Clark, 2002) and that communication across borders is an important means for gaining greater balance because organisational policies will not always meet individual preferences. The Psychological Contract Theory The psychological contract first originated with the work of Argyris (1960), Levinson Price, Munden, Mandl, and Solley (1963) and Schein (1965). In their works, they identified that psychological contracts are unwritten expectations between the individual and the organisation that continually interact. Many of these expectations are implicit. For the individual, the implicit expectations often involve a sense of dignity, worth, and an expectation that the employer will provide opportunities for growth and learning. For the organisation, implicit expectations often include such issues as enhancing the image of the organisation, being loyal and doing their best. These expectations are not written in formal contracts between the individual and the organisation. However, they act as powerful determinants of behaviour and result in an inherent obligatory quality in mutual reciprocal transactions (Argyris; Levinson et al.; Schein, 1965). The psychological contract is viewed as a reference to the beliefs of the individual in regards to the reciprocal obligations of an organisation that can be implicit or explicit (Millward & Brewerton, 1999). Beliefs in reciprocal obligations can develop as a result of overt promises during the recruitment phase, interpretations of past exchanges, vicarious learning through witnessing other employees experiences or through an individuals belief of what constitutes fairness or good will (Millward & Brewerton, 1999). Promises that address work-life issues may also become increasingly important in todays organisation. As dual-earner families and single parents increase, employees may come to value and rely on the promises their employer has made to them about work-life issues (i.e., time-off to care for a sick child). In addition, technology advances have made longer working hours possible, telecommuting more prevalent, and home offices increasingly common. Lobel, Googins, and Bankert (1999) conducted a study where they asked 28 large corporation "thought leaders" to identify major environmental trends that may affect work/life policies and practices. Thought leaders identified four environmental trends: globalisation, technological change, increasing organisational flexibility, and changing family structures. These environmental trends may affect the promises employees perceive their employers have made about work-life issues, as well as increase the importance employees place upon these promises. WLB Programs and their Benefits Work-life balance programs were among the most popular and publicised workplace innovations of the nineties. These include a wide variety of initiatives that fall into two general categories. The first category includes services and financial support, allowing employees with family responsibilities to spend more time and energy on work. Flexible spending accounts, elder care, and child care facilities or subsidies, wellness programs, and employee assistance programs belong to this category (Whitehouse et al., 2007). The second includes all those flexibility-creating policies permitting employees some control over the time and location of work, as well as a variety of leave policies. Flexible work schedules, compressed workweeks, voluntary part-time work, job sharing, job exchange, phased retirement, telecommuting, home-based work, and family and medical leaves are designed to free employees to attend to family needs. Advocates of work-family programs have touted their beneficial effects on organisational performance. Nevertheless, available evidence indicates that "family-friendly" organisations enjoy several advantages over their competitors. First, they reap greater media exposure and hence a recruitment and retention advantage (Cordeiro et al., 2005). Second, by removing the forces that keep employees from working, or prevent them from devoting their full attention to work, family-oriented organisations gain productivity benefits in terms of reduced absenteeism and tardiness(Griffiths, 2006). Family initiatives have also been linked to greater organisational attachment, organisational citizenship behavior, and greater levels of perceived firm performance. Several studies have also supported the positive effects of workplace support on job satisfaction and morale. For example, a major study conducted by McKinsey & Company showed that more than two-thirds of those work characteristics rated "absolutely essential" to attracting and retaining talent were work/life balance factors (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001). Further, a qualitative study in a large petrochemical company showed that the opportunity to use such policies (specifically compressed work week) was reported as a major reason why employees stay in the organisation (Kennedy, Kultgen, & Roelofs, 2000). Moreover, preliminary evidence exists that shareholders also value companies decisions to implement work-personal life balance policies. For example, Arthur (as cited in MacDermid, 2002) found a measurable increase in share price in response to an announcement of a work-life policy in the Wall Street Journal. Additionally, Perry-Smith and Blum (2000) found that companies with extensive work-life policies had higher perceived firm-level performance and reported sales three times higher than companies with less extensive policies. Thus, there is evidence to suggest that providing mechanisms for employees to increase work-personal life balance may contribute to organisational performance in terms of attraction, retention, and other indices of performance such as share price and perceptions of overall firm performance. Problems with WLB Programs Work-Life balance or ‘Family-friendly’ programs have in some instances magnified the work-life balance problem (Hooker et al, 2007). For instance, spending accounts and referral services (the most widespread of family policies) provide only superficial help, remain costly, and often require daunting paperwork. Telework, flextime, compressed workweeks, and other alternative schedules often result in social isolation from friends and relatives, blurred boundaries between home and work, increased work hours, and added physical fatigue. In addition, the availability, affordability, and quality of services offered are often far from adequate, increasing the worries of those who use them (Hooker et al, 2007). Secondly, family-friendly remain inconsistent with workplace cultures and managerial attitudes regarding "face time" (Kodz et al., 2003). They are built on work systems that discourage employees from using them for fear of social stigma and career repercussions, a reality that is especially significant for men. The beliefs that one cannot "have it all" and that sacrifices in the domains of life are necessary for career success remain prevalent today. For example, part-time work, a useful and viable solution to work-life strains, is stigmatised, receives poor pay and very little benefits, and is often considered a dead-end job. Furthermore, studies have also reported that leaves-of-absence, regardless of reason and gender, were associated with reduced organisational rewards, in terms of fewer subsequent promotions, smaller salary increases, and more negative performance ratings (Kirby and Krone, 2002). Conclusion Helping employees attain work­ personal life balance has become an important goal of human resource policies in many organisations. Flexible benefits policies (such as flextime, telecommuting, and compressed work week) have been implemented in an attempt to increase work-personal life balance. Although some studies have raised concerns, however, there is an ample evidence to suggest that providing mechanisms for employees to increase work-personal life balance may contribute to organisational performance in terms of attraction, retention, and other indices of performance such as share price and perceptions of overall firm performance. To address possible concerns, human resources policies should focus on not only providing work-life benefits to help employees their roles and attain core values, but also on preventing a perception that using such benefits will harm one’s chances of having a fulfilling career. References Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organisational behavior; Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770. Clark, S. C. (2002). Communicating across the work/home border. Community, Work, & Family, 5 (1) 23-48. Cordeiro, B. L., Crouter, A. C., & Grandey, A. A. (2005). A longitudinal and multi-source test of the work-family conflict and job satisfaction relationship [Electronic version]. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78(3), 305-323. Ezzedeen, S. R. (2003). Rethinking work-life balance: Development and validation of the cognitive intrusion of work scale. George Washington University, Washington. Griffiths, K. (2006). More than the money [Electronic version]. Industrial Distribution, 95(5) 32-35. Hooker, H. , Neathey, F. , Casebourne, J. , Munro, M. (2007) The Third Work-Life Balance Employee Survey. DTI Employment Relations Research Series No. 58 . London: DTI. James G. Clawson, (2009). Balancing Your Life Executive Lessons for Work, Family and Self, World Scientific. Kennedy, K., Kultgen, V., & Roelofs, B. (2002). Shell Global Diversity Practice-Americas region report on work life integration in the U.S. Internal report, Shell Oil Company. Kirby E. L. and Krone K. J. (2002). The policy exists but you cant really use it: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1): 50–77. Kodz, J. , Davis, S. , Lain, D. , Strebler, M. , Rick, J. , Bates, P. , Cummings, J. , Meager, N. , Trinczek, R. , and Palmer, S. (2003) Working Long Hours: A Review of the Evidence. Volume 1 - Main Report. Department of Trade and Industry, Employment Relations Research Series No. 16 . London: DTI. Lambert, C. H., Kass, S. J., Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2006). Impact factors on work-family balance: Initial support for border theory. Organisational Development Journal, 24 (3), 64-75. Levinson, H., Price, C. R., Munden, K. J., Mandl, R. J., & Solley, C. M. (1963). Men, management and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lobel, S. A., Googins, B. K. & Bankert, E. (1999). The future of work and family: critical trends for policy, practice, and research. Human Resource Management, 38(3), 243-254. MacDermid, S. M. (2002). The business case for supportive workplaces. Presentation at the National Council on Family Relations, Work/Life Summit. Houston, Texas. Michaels, E., Handfield- Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Millward, L. M. & Brewerton, P. M. (1999). Contractors and their psychological contracts. British Journal of Management, 10(1),253-274. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Work-family human resource bundles and perceived organisational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 1107-1117. Ragins, B. R. , & Verbos, A. K. (2007). Positive relationships in action: Relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace . In J. E. Dutton , ed. 8 B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. p. 91-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, 1.K., & Pruitt, B. H. (2002). Beyond work-family balance: Advancing gender equity and workplace performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Redman, T. , and Wilkinson, A. (2006) Contemporary human resource management: text and cases , London: Prentice Hall/FT. Schein, E. H. (1965). Organisational Psychology; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Strachan, G., & Burgess, J. (1998). The family friendly workplace: Origins, meaning, and application at Australian workplaces. International Journal of Manpower, 19 (4), 250-265. Whitehouse, G. , Haynes, M. , MacDonald, F. , and Arts, D. (2007) Reassessing the ‘Family-friendly Workplace’: Trends and Influences in Britain, 1998–2004. DTI Employment Relations Research Series, No. 76. London: DTI. Read More