work-life balance: constraints and opportunities for an...

Work-Life Balance: constraints and opportunities for an effective

implementation at firm-level.

Daniele Grandi

Abstract – The profound changes that have characterized the workplace in recent years, the evolution of population demographic trends, and changes in family dynamics, and those of relationships in general, have shifted scholars, academics and practitioners attention and interest on a topic, certainly not new but often underestimated in the past, which is that of work-life balance. Despite the benefits that such practices could give to businesses, fostering competitive advantage, there are different levels of reactiveness between industries. The purpose of this article is to analyze these benefits and explore those problems that pose limits for an effective implementation of such practices.

Introduction

In recent decades, workplaces and workforce have changed dramatically. The increasing number of women in the workforce, and the increasing number of workers who are part of a dual-earning couple, population is ageing in a, relatively, fast rate, workers are subjected to longer working hours, and more sophisticated communications technology enabling near constant contact with the workplace. In response to these changes, organizations started to put in place new tools and practice, adventuring into a new area of human resource management – support employees in balancing the demands of work with the demands of non-work activities. Many organizations have implemented the so-called “work-life balance” policies, and nowadays an increasingly large number of firms is starting following this path, expecting to help their employees cope with the multiple demands on their time and enhance the organizations’ effort to recruit, motivate and retain employees. Traditionally, work-life balance has been seen as an issue for individual employees, with organizations putting effort in improving work-life balance focusing on programs aimed to help employees better manage their home life. However, with growing awareness for the

increasing changes mentioned before, the current skills shortage, and the war of talent, a slender shift has been observed in the discussion around for work-life balance, from responding to individual employee needs to a broader based business case (Russell 2002; Thornthwaite 2004) Nowadays, even if there is no once accepted definition among scholars, academics and practitioners of what constitutes a work-life balance practice, the term is usually used to refer to one of the following: organizational support for dependent care, flexible work options, and family or personal leave (Estes & Michael, 2005). Thus, these practices include flexible work hours (e.g. flextime, which permits workers to vary their start and finish times provided a certain number of hours is worked; compressed work week, in which employees work a full week’s worth of hours in four days and take the fifth off), teleworking (working from home), job sharing (sharing a full-time job between two employees, sometimes between two member of a family), family leave programs (e.g. parental leave, adoption leave, compassionate leave), onsite childcare (e.g. kindergartens), and financial and/or informational assistance with childcare and eldercare services.

Work-Life Balance: constraints and opportunities for an effective implementation at firm-level (2012)

2

One of the main principles related to the debate around work-life balance policies is that future employees will perceive work-life balance options as a desirable attribute in a job. It is argued that work-life balance policies symbolize efforts put in place by firms in caring for the employees and their families, and creates a supportive feeling about employee needs, thus firm’s awareness about the need of balancing work and non-work duties it will be considered a main issue by future employees when applying for a position in an organization(Grover & Crooker, 1995). Moreover, scholars argue that work-life balance contributes to employee engagement (e.g. organizational commitment and job satisfaction), which in turn lead to higher productivity and lower organizational turnover. De Ciceri et al. (2005) state that any organization looking for increasing competitive advantage must “develop the capability to attract, motivate and retain a highly skilled, flexible and adaptive workforce” by “an approach to HR and work-life balance strategies that cater for the diverse need of the workforce”. In addition to this, consistent with this strategy to attract and retain a diverse workforce, work-life balance is often considered more important for women (who continue to live and imbalance in home and family care duties), older employees and the younger “work to live” generation “Y”. In this paper I will analyze what are the purposes of work-life balance policies for what concern recruitment, retention, productivity, and other organizational outcomes, taking the “SAS Institute” case study as an example of good way of addressing and implementing work-life balance policies. Then, I will explain what are the constraints for an effective implementation of work-life balance policies, the critics moved against the approach used for addressing the work-life balance issues, and in which contexts it is easier to find these practices. Work-Life Balance Policies and HRM According to Konrad and Mangel’s (2000), in a competitive labor market “firms enhance their

ability to attract the best recruits if they offer flexible policies, alongside competitive remuneration packages”. Furthermore, Dex’ and Scheibl’s (1999) strategic model suggest that “if a critical mass of firms in an industry offer work life balance policies, it would be difficult for the other firms to hold out and not offer work-life balance programmes”. Starting with this two statements, will be now analyzed the organizational outcomes related to work-life balance policies. Recruitment One of the Recruiters’ main tasks is to communicate information about the job and the organization, and in doing that they play a critical role in the whole recruitment process. Source of information about the job and the organization influences i) perceived person-job fit and subsequent attraction and ii) voluntary, avoidable turnover (Carless & Wintle, 2007). The assumption behind this concept is that is that accurate and realistic job information enables applicants to check and evaluate the degree of congruence between their knowledge, skills and abilities and the job requirements. Applicants who perceive that fit between those and the job requirements are more likely to remain in the selection process and accept a job offer (Carless & Wintle, 2007). Some studies used the Social Identity Theory for studying the way in which work-life balance policies may attract future employees. (Honeycutt & Rosen, 1997; Carless & Wintle, 2007). “Identity salience”, which can be explained as the probability, for a given person, with a given identity to be invoked in a variety of different situations, may influence differential preferences for career paths. Scholars identified three different types of salient identity: i) family-salient individuals, who perceive themselves as a being primarily family oriented, ii) balance-salient individuals, who perceive themselves as being oriented toward finding a balance between family and career, iii) career-salient individuals, who perceive themselves as primarily career oriented. Thus, once in the recruitment and selection


3

process people will evaluate the match between organizational identities and their salient identities, and the latter will influence reactions to work-life balance policies. Considering that work-life balance policies can be structured around career paths ,concerning, in particular, their flexibility, organizations may differ in the types of career path options available to employees. Honeycut and Rosen (1997), Schwartz (1989), and Hall (1990), identified three different career path: i) traditional career path, where employees “are expected to direct their time and effort to moving up the corporate ladder regardless of their family circumstances”, ii) dual career path, where employees may choose between a career-primary path, similar to the traditional career path, and a career-and-family path, which “will allow them to work fewer hours and travel less in exchange for lower earnings and fewer promotional opportunities”, and iii) flexible career path, in which family friendly policies are incorporated. Both studies conducted by Honeycut and Rosen, first, and Carless and Wintle, later, suggest that family salient, balance salient, career salient, men women, parents, and nonparents are all attracted to the organizations that offer flexibility, the so-called “universal appeal” perspective (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). More in detail, even if it has been found that work-life balance career policies are particularly attractive to young job seeker and women, those applicants who may not personally benefit from work-life balance policies have a positive reaction to them in anyway. In fact, they interpret the availability of work-life balance policies as “signals that the company cares for its employees” (Spence, 1973), which is interpreted favorably. Even if these studies gained a certain degree of consensus, some scholars suggest that individual differences among employees can moderate the appeal of work-life balance practices offered by organizations. This is consistent with the person-organization fit perspective, which states that “individual differences are key predictors of the qualities a job candidate will find attractive in an employing organization” (Turban & Keon, 1993). Unlike the universal appeal perspective, which

sees organizational work-life balance practices as an advantage for recruiting all kind of employees, the person-organization fit viewpoint suggests that work-life balance practices offering certain advantages are more likely to attract people that are looking forward for, and are directly benefiting from, these perks perspective (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). Satisfaction, Commitment and Retention Findings related to work-life balance policies and organizational outcomes as retention and satisfaction mainly rely on the concept of psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995), and on social exchange theory (Settoon, Bennett & Liden, 1996), which can predict, for example, organizational citizenship behavior in return for perceived usefulness of work-family benefits, or, on the contrary, dissatisfaction related to lower commitment to work due to perceived imbalance in workloads and hours if commensurate with rewards. However, “while there may be a direct link between work-life balance and employees’ satisfaction, commitment and intention to stay with an organization (based on the theories mentioned above), this is likely to be small compared to the impact of other organizational factors” (e.g. job autonomy, learning opportunities, supervisor and co-workers support for job success, etc.) (Parkes & Langford, 2008). Parkes and Langford (2008), argue that rather than a direct link, work-life balance is more likely to benefit an organization indirectly through those well-being factors that have been found as associated with it, that is, work-related stress and burnout. In addition to this, other aspects of organizational have been found as going in the same direction, supporting the mentioned relationship. For example, work-life balance is positively related to the perceived fairness and support of supervisor, organizational understanding of family needs, and support for out-of-work activities and responsibilities. Some studies revealed that work-life practices (e.g. telework, flexible hours, childcare services), produce effects in terms of high job satisfaction, increased affective commitment and decreased


4

turnover intentions. However, some scholars (e.g. Wang & Walumbwa, 2007) argued that, in order to be effective and to be related to positive job attitudes, those practices have to effectively raise employees control over their time and improve organizational wellness (which is not always obvious). Talking about satisfaction and organizational climate it is interesting to take into consideration Parkes and Langford (2008) studies. Their findings show that a lower level of engagement was reported by employees with higher work-life balance, particularly these employees demonstrated less commitment to their organizations and less intention to stay. This is contrast with Allen et al (2000) belief that a “lack of balance between work and life may cause employees to flee the situation and seek alternative employment in organizations with more supportive work culture”. How can these findings be explained? Scholars’ interpretation of these findings is that even if work-life balance can enhance engagement and retention under certain circumstances, it is more likely that highly engaged employees will sacrifice work-life balance to achieve organizational goals, especially in those cases where organization provides supportive environment in other ways. Thus, an important managerial implication for HR Professionals is that “work practices that are effective at engaging and retaining employees are not necessarily the same as those that optimize employee wellness” (Langford, Parkes & Abbey, 2006). In conclusion, it is possible to argue that even if the provision of work-life practices has the potential to generate improved attitudinal and behavioral outcomes among employees independent of practice in use, by social exchange or thanks to psychological contract (but research has not yet explicitly tested this proposition), it is important to consider, when implementing those policies, that the link between organizational outcome and work-life balance practices might not be direct and explicit, and there is the need to consider the specific internal and external environment in which

characterize the organization and how these policies have been implemented as a whole. Performance and Productivity Some research at “policy level” tried to address the relationship between the use of work-life balance policies and organizational outcomes in terms of performance and productivity. Studies about onsite childcare found no effects of childcare center use on supervisor ratings of employee performance, although self-ratings of performance among user indicated higher levels of quality and greater ability to balance multiple roles than among non-user. Moreover, telework is another practice that has received mixed support with regard to its effects on employee performance. Several studies found a positive association between telework and performance among employees, and some scholars found an increase in productivity between 10% and 30%. However, some evidence from other studies indicates that more time spent in teleworking is not related to increased performance but to lower productivity. Furthermore, studies examining groupings of flexible working arrangements has associated employee participation in these arrangements with higher levels of self-reported focus, concentration, motivation, and self-reported productivity (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). Other results about work-life practice usage have been generated by “organization level” research. These research demonstrated that: i) flexible work hours are associated with an increase of around 10% in firm productivity, ii) organizations offering a broader range of work-life balance policies reported a higher perceived market performance, profit-sales growth, and organizational performance, and iii) organizations offering parental leave enjoyed a labor productivity above the average. Scholars gave different explanations for these results. Pfeffer (1981), talking about the symbolic action perspective, stated that “the provision of work-life balance practice promotes employee obligation and interest in organizations by serving as symbols of special treatment and


5

organizational concern for workers”. Concerning flexible hours, Shepard et al. (1996) speculate that these “may increase organizational productivity because employees may choose to work during their peak hours in terms of personal productivity”. In addition to this, they argue that workers using flexible hours “may increase their work effort, because the costs of losing a job that offers desired flexibility would be higher than those of losing a job without the option of flexible hours”. Moreover, McDonald et al. (2005) argue that, working flexible hours, employees “may enable organizations to keep up with a work load that is inherently variable throughout the year”; furthermore, the presence of flexible hours arrangements may invoke the principle of reciprocity, wherein “employees work extra hours during peak times in exchange for the ability to tailor their hours to suit their own needs at other times” (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). Finally, it has been argued that there may be a direction of causality issue: successful firms may be better able to afford work-life practices and thereby more likely to make them available. In addition to this, Arthur (2003) stressed the fact that benefits to firms offering work-life balance practices may vary according to industry or workforce demographics. For example, some studies revealed that the relation between extensive provision of work-life balance and firm productivity was stronger in organizations employing a higher proportion of women, and those whose workforce was composed in a greater extent by professionals, concluding that “for companies hiring less skilled, less autonomous, and less highly paid workers, the productivity benefits of work life initiatives may be negligible” (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). Summarizing, by providing work-life balance practices productivity may be enhanced as a result of employees either exerting greater effort in order to retain desirable benefits, or simply working at their peak hours. In addition to this, it has been found that these practices and policies may have different degrees of effectiveness considering different segment of the labor market, referring to gender, and qualification of the workforce.

Constraints to effectiveness within organizations The influence of work-life practices on organizational effectiveness may be compromised by practices that fail to achieve their intended aims (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). An issue frequently cited is lack of use. In fact, employees often remain unaware of the work-life benefits to which they are entitled following the implementation of work-life balance practices. Even when employees are well informed of the policies implemented, many of them show a reluctance to use those practices. For example, relative to female employees, few men make use of family leave. They will rather choose to take vacation or other discretionary days off upon the birth of a child or other family-related events (Berry & Rao, 1997). Hall (1990) call this the “invisible daddy track”; if colleagues and supervisors are not conscious that an employee is taking time off work for family-related reasons, he is less likely to be charged for having competing priorities and less likely to be perceived as uncommitted to his job. Proposing that men are expected to place work before family, and are thus not viewed as being good organizational citizens when they take leave, “gender role theory” may be an explanation for this phenomenon. Another important issue, talking about lack of use, is that the perception that using work-life balance practices will have a negative impact on career prospects and on the relationship with co-workers appears to be a powerful demotivator for employees’ use of these practices (Kodz et al., 2002), and this perception is reinforced by organizational cultures unsupportive of work-life balance issues. Implementation attributes, as scarce supervisors support, and organizational features, as long-hours work and unaccommodating attitudes among senior manager and co-workers, tend to work against a proper usage and lower the outcome of these practices. For example, even if some work-life practices, such as voluntary reduced hours, are frequently unavailable in upper-level professional


6

and managerial work, when they are available their use is often associated with career derailment . As “time spent at the workplace is often used as an indicator of employees’ contributions and commitment to the organization, participation in work-life practices that make employees less visible (e.g. telework, flexible hours, family leave) has been associated with lower performance evaluations, smaller salary increases, and fewer promotions” (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). Therefore, is not surprising that work-life balance practices tend to be underexploited by male employees, single employees, and career-oriented mothers (Bailyn, Fletcher & Kolb, 1997), and that anxiety for negative career consequences. as a consequence of using practices, has been associated with higher levels of work-life conflicts (Anderson et al., 2002). For those employees who are aware of the practices available to them and who wish to make use of them, other obstacles may exist. Line managers frequently have limited training in work-life related human resource policies, therefore their awareness of those practices is usually quite poor. In addition to this, supervisors generally have poor awareness of work-life practices in their organization, and their discretion, that can be influenced by internal and external factors, abut allowing the access to certain practices, may influence negatively their effectiveness in making these practices available (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). Considering what argued preciously it is possible to state that the availability of work-life policies

and practices is necessary but not sufficient in itself for such policies and practices to be seen as supportive. It is possible that the use and impact of work-life balance initiatives could be related to the strategic orientation of different employers. Those employers who manage employees as “assets” to be developed, and which have a range of “high involvement work practices”, may benefit from an higher impact of work-life balance policies (Forsyth & Polzer-Debruyne, 2007). In conclusion, as long as employee’s alignment with the values and purposes of their organization is strongly related to satisfaction and engagement, Parkes and Langford (2008) suggest that work-life balance policies are understood best considering the relationship between them and other work practices, and should drive organizations to implement broader organizational strategies. Creating “work-life alignment through congruent goal and values, fostering corporate social responsibility, looking after the health and safety of employees, improving reward and performance appraisal system to more accurately reflect performance outcome (rather than time in the office), developing fair and supportive supervisors, and facilitating participation and involvement in decision-making among all employees, would increase employee engagement and retention generally, reduce the impact of diversity and flow on to greater satisfaction with work-life balance” (Parkes and Langford, 2008) (see also, “A Focus on SAS Institute”).

A focus on SAS Institute SAS Institute is the world’s largest privately held software company, with sales in 1998 of $870 million – double its revenue six years earlier. In 1999, they exceeded $1 billion. Founded in 1976, the company makes statistical analysis software that it leases to a widely diverse group of customers. The company’s customer base has grown from 100 customers in 1976 to more than 30,000 in twelve countries, including all but two of the largest U.S. public companies. SAS Institute has 5,400 employees; 3,400 are at the company’s campus headquarters in Cary, North Carolina. John Goodnight, SAS Institute’s founder and CEO, owns two-thirds of the company, while John Sall, a senior vice president, owns the other third. It is only over the past two years that SAS Institute has become much more in tune with the public relations value of touting its unique work environment, and has begun to take steps to get on various business magazine


7

lists of family-friendly companies. The importance, according to the company, goes beyond the corporate image with customers: it is a key factor in recruitment and SAS Institute’s retention of employees. SAS has created an environment that seeks to bypass many of the problems faced by its rival firms in California’s Silicon Valley and elsewhere, where “churn and burn” is the order of the day. SAS foster team working and “codetermination”. The structures in place are made for encouraging teamwork and the reward system encourages interdependence. For instance, everyone in the sales organization gets a bonus, depending on performance relative to other members of the salesforce but relative to target. All of the benefits and perks are available to all employees, and everyone on campus is a SAS Institute Employee: software engineers, salespeople, childcare workers, groundskeepers, and so on. Goodnight believes strongly that people are much more committed if they are part of the company. All employees have the same exact bonus plan potential (of course, higher-paid people are paid out at a higher rate). There are no designed parking spaces and no executive dining room. Goodnight and other senior executives eat lunch regularly in one of the two company cafeterias. Some of the policies promoting an employee friendly work environment in SAS are: profit sharing plan, 35-hour work week and flexible work schedule, company-sponsored on-site childcare staffed by employees, self-funded on-site healthcare center staffed with family nurse practitioners, wellness program Work-Life Initiatives department, additional paid week off between Christmas and New Year’s Day, etc. Particularly interesting is that, according to SAS Institute’s written policy, the standard workweek is thirty-five hours. While most employees don’t actually work thirty-five hours on a regular basis, people talk about how the choice is there – and that such a choice makes all the difference. Among those who choose to work longer hours, there is a strong sense that they do so by choice and out of a love for their work, as opposed to a lack of productivity or because of unreasonable workloads. According to the 1997 Business Week data, 66% of SAS Institute respondents strongly disagreed with the question: “Are you expected to work long hours no matter what it means for your personal or family life”. This compares with 29% of all respondents. In addition to this, it is important to consider that so many benefits set SAS Institute apart from its competitors. When it comes to pay, though, SAS employees get the average (or in some cases below the average) for the software industry. In addition, unlike at most other software companies, there are no stock options. Goodnight’s view has always been that SAS Institute doesn’t have to offer high salaries to get people either to come or stay, given everything else the company provides to its employees. He has always wanted people to come to work at SAS Institute for the work itself, and stay with the company for the work. Jim Goodnight is the principal driver for the evolution of SAS work environment, and all the Executives promote the culture through example. For example, the vice president of commercial sales has two children in the SAS Institute daycare center. After heavy travel periods it is common for her to announce to her staff that she will not be in for a few days so she can spend some time with her kids. And John Sall, the company’s number-two executives and only other owner, is very visible on campus as a man whose work behavior promotes the company’s philosophy. All the evidence points to the fact that SAS Institute is doing things right. The company continues to grow, and employees are thrilled to have their jobs. SAS Institute has made the top of most of the lists various business magazines publish about the “best place to work”. In both years of the Fortune “Best Places to Work” survey, SAS Institute ranked fourth within its comparison group overall, and at the very top of the list if you take only employee opinion into account. And SAS Institute has been on the Working Mother “Best 100” list ten times since 1989, and has been recognized as a “Top 10” company for six of those times. Source: Ellen B., Lee M. D. & Lange C. (2000). SAS Institute – A Case on the role of senior business leaders in driving work/life cultural change. https://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/sites/workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/files/imported/pdfs/SASwharton.pdf


8

Which businesses are most likely to implement work-life balance policies? Talking about industry type, referring to work-life balance policies, finance, insurance and real estate are the most generous, white retail and wholesale are the least ones. In some countries (e.g. Australia, Japan, UK) family-friendly arrangements are most common in the public sector, presumably because this is not subject to commercial pressures, and because in certain countries it is supposed to be, by legislation, a good employer and work-life policies are often one of the easier strategies for them to implement (Yasbek, 2004). For what concern firm size , it has been found that this affects the type and the extent of work-life balance policies that are offered. Some studies found that company size was the next best predictor of the presence of work-life balance policies, after industry type. In the US, larger companies (those with more than 1000 employees) were more likely to provide flexible work options and longer paid parental leave. The higher presence of work-life balance policies in large firms has been reported also in Australia, Japan and UK. In Canada, even if has been found that flextime and telework are much more available to employees in small workplaces (less than 10 employees), other policies as child or eldercare, are most available in large organizations, probably because of the possibility of achieving scale effects (Yasbek, 2004). Taking into consideration the importance of SMEs in the global market – according to EUROSTAT, in the sole European Union in 2008 there were 20,7 million SMEs, and they account for 99.8% of the total number of enterprises and employ 67.4% of population (Kalinic & Sforza, 2012) - it would interesting to have enough data to analyze more in deep the implementation of work-life balance policies among these companies. In fact, although, generally speaking, SMEs have certain advantages in implementing flexible policies and it is easier for them to undertake internal reorganization, these companies are less likely to have formal or stated work-life balance policies, meaning that it

is difficult for the majority of the surveys to capture the extent of the benefits available to employees though informal negotiation (Yasbek, 2004). As it has been stated previously, it is possible to detect an implementation of work-life balance policies in those firms employing large numbers of professionals due to their scarcity, more difficult to attract, more valuable and more expensive to recruit and retain than less “well-paid” employees. Because the outputs of professional staff are not as tangible as the outputs of, as an example, a manufacturing process, it is more difficult (and costly) to monitor and control their productivity. In addition to this, Professionals are more likely to resent intense supervision and scrutiny. Therefore, work-life balance policies may be an extra inducement for a professional’s discretionary effort. Evidence of a greater presence of work-life balance policies among firms with a greater proportion of professionals has been found in the US, UK, Japan, and Australia (Yasbek, 2004). Talking about low-skilled workers, work-life balance policies appear to be least available for those workers, especially those in generally low skill industries. As an example, the US companies employing a higher proportion of hourly workers were the least likely to offer work-balance policies. Conversely, Australian reports about retail sector suggest that work-life balance policies are just as important and relevant in an industry with extremely low profit margins (other examples in this direction can be found in the New Zealand’s labor market). The explanation can be that due to the higher costs that firms have to afford in order to recruit and train low-skilled part-time workers, work-life balance policies can be implemented to reduce these costs by reducing staff turnover rates (Yasbek, 2004). Regarding work-life balance practices offered to female employees, it is interesting to look at Konrad and Mangel’s (2000) studies related to the United States’ labor market, which counter the “adverse selection theory”. In fact, while the theory claims that firms with more attractive


9

policies will attract individuals who have greater need for those policies – and in the case of work-life balance policies, if a greater percentage of employees uses the more expensive work-life balance policies most of the time, then these will become uneconomical and reduce profitability – , the study show that i) firms with a greater percentage of female employees are more likely to have more extensive work-life balance policies, and that ii) among the firms employing higher numbers of women, those with a greater number of work-life balance policies show a higher productivity. Referring to the US, having a greater proportion of top executives positions filled by women is associated with greater provision of work-life balance policies. Moreover, companies with a larger proportion of women in their workforce re more likely to invest in policies such as job sharing, part-time work, flexible time, and child care. Conversely, companies are more likely to invest in costly options, such as paid parental leave, when women constitute a smaller proportion of the workforce (Yasbek, 2004). Discussion After the analysis conducted among the goals of work-life balance practices and among industries, it is important to face those which are the critics moved against work-life balance policies and the debate underpinning them. According to Eikhof, Warhurst & Haunschild, (2007), even if the articulation of work and life, the so-called work-life balance, has become a key point of much current government, practitioner and academic debate, this debate “seems to center on a number of questionable assumptions and perceptions: that work is experienced as negative, with long working hours particular problem; that “life” can be equated with caring responsibilities, most particularly childcare, with the result that women are the primary target of work-life balance provisions; and that work and life are separable and in need of being separated”. Firstly, supporting these opinions, McDonald et al. (2005) argue, “although ostensibly gender neutral”, most of the work-life balance policies,

“in practice revolve around facilitating the working conditions of women”. And even if both women and men may experience work as debilitating of their lives, work-life balance policies are targeting the former, who still carry most responsibilities for childcare, even in “gender neutral” countries as Sweden. In addition to this, Eikhof, Warhurst and Haunschild (2007) state that life outside work consist of more than care and standard work-life balance policies hardly take into consideration “life” in all its rich varieties. Secondly, an argument, concerning the too simplistic way in which work-life balance is faced, is often moved against the number of hours worked. Some studies revealed that satisfaction with work-life balance is effected more by work colleagues than the number of hours worked. Moreover, 60% of all workers are satisfied with their working hours. Even in dual income families, in which both parents work full time, less than a third of respondents to the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes 2003 said that their hours of work are too long. Moreover, there is no axiomatic demand for reduced working hours, even for those working longest hours. The explanation given is that parent’s life happiness is fulfilled with the consumptive power gained, which can fulfill the increasing consumptive aspiration among a more and more increasing share of population. Finally, considering Europe, marital status seems to be an important factor referring to the impact on working hours. In fact, while single men and women are least likely to work long hours, recently singled women as well as widowed men and women are most likely to do this, suggesting work as sustenance in times of personal difficulty because it allows to “escape from domestic stress” (Eikhof, Warhurst & Haunschild, 2007). While on one side these considerations certainly raise important issues concerning the global labor market and that certainly cannot be ignored by policy makers and employers, on the other side a strict and narrow interpretation of these statements risks to be too simplistic. It is true that a greater part of work-life balance practices usually involves positive actions for


10

allowing a better balance between work and house care, and that those practices have as a target mainly women, but it is important to consider that those practices are necessary and before the firm itself the government should act in order to lower the degrees of diversity imbedded in certain national cultures. For that purpose, firms can be a useful tools that policy maker can use, through legislation, for addressing those issues. Even if firms are not all reacting with the same degree of quickness to the input coming from the governments, there are a lot of examples of “responsible” and proactive employers. Nevertheless, changing the business model that characterized the economy till the last decade is the main challenge for firms and policy makers nowadays. Furthermore, the statement that there is almost no demand about having “lower working hours” don’t have to be generalized. It is true that for many workers a “long hours culture may not be so deleterious to their enjoyment of work” (Eikhof, Warhurst & Haunschild, 2007), but this argument fail to consider the issue as a whole. Some workers may fit better with a “long hours culture” because the state intervention in issue work-life balance related is very effective. In addition to this, in an era where people are facing changing in their everyday life, the key point is that is very difficult to predict how a certain “working cultures” can influence people all life-long. Needs for flexibility may occur later or earlier during life and the role that firms are playing in this scenario is to prevent, or at least to limit, the risk of burnout and other work-related stress issue. The very high difficulty for surveys to benchmark the respondents answers to their effective quality of live and the problem that they may face, or are facing, currently, and the trend to underestimate certain situations, may end in a limited effectiveness in confirming certain results. Finally, the argument that working can be an “escape from domestic stress” cannot support the statement that work itself can be “positive”. Escaping from “domestic stress” and, as a consequence, working longer hours, can’t be related in such simplistic way to what Eikhof,

Warhurst and Haunschild (2007) call “self-fulfillment” and job satisfaction. Having the workplace as an alternative to domestic problems may lower anxiety, for a certain extent, but it is far away to help “satisfaction”. Even if firms can put in place effort in order to provide a workplace that could be a “second home” where employees can, or at least try to, forget the problems for a while, the need for escaping from domestic stress may be view as a firm’s failure in providing a certain degree of work-life balance to employees, or in detecting those that could have been family-related problem referring to certain area and to their workforce demographic. Conclusions Work-life balance and implementation of work-life balance policies will be one of the main topic for the next decades when talking about human resource practices. The need for a major balance between work and non- work activities is an issue more and more spread between working population and it will be even more important with the entrance of new generations in the labor market. This is not an easy challenge and both firms and governments will be required to put more effort into this. In this paper it has been analyzed those that may be the main organizational outcomes in terms of recruitment, job satisfaction, retention, performance and productivity. It is clear how a change in firms mindset and culture is required in order to align their policies to both population needs and new way for reaching competitive opportunities that are nowadays embedded in the global labor market. Even if some companies have been more proactive, and reactive, (I took SAS Institute as a main example) there is the need to move more step forward in this direction. Although several critics have been moved to the approach that firms and governments have in relation to work-life balance issues, and to the overrated relevance that this topic have in the economic environment nowadays, the feeling is that providing work-life balance through the working population is a task that firms, in order


11

to remain competitive, can’t avoid to face in an effective way. The employees’ need for increasing benefits in a continuously changing environment and wide opportunities for firms, referring to competitive advantages, lead to the conclusion that promoting work-life balance policies and care about the implementation of effective practices, in order to achieve a proper balance between work and non-work activities need to become an intrinsic trait of the business and not just an additional component of corporate policies. References Allen T. D., Herst D. E., Bruck C. S. & Sutton M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Phycology, 5: 278-308. Anderson S. E., Coffey B. S. & Byerly R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-life conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28(6): 787-810. Arthur M. M. (2003). Share price reactions to work-family human resource decision: An institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 497-505. Bailyn L., Fletcher J. K. & Kolb D. (1997). Unexpected connections: Considering employees’ personal lives can revitalize your business. Sloan Management Review, 38: 11-19. Beauregard T. A. & Henry L. C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19: 9-22. Berry J. O. & Rao J. M. (1997). Balancing employment and fatherhood: A system perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 18:386-402. Carless S. A. & Wintle J. (2007). Applicant Attraction: The role of recruiter function, work-life balance policies and career salience. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(4): 394-404. De Ciceri H., Holmes B., Abbott J. & Pettit T. (2005). Achievement and Challenges for work-life balance strategies in Australian organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16: 90-103. Dex S. & Scheibl F. (1999). Business Performance and Family-Friendly Policies. Journal of General Management, 24(4): 22-37. Eikhof D. R., Warhurst C. & Haunschild A. (2007). Introduction: What work? What life? What balance?. Employee Relations, 29(4): 325-333. Estes S. B. & Michael J. (2005). Work-family policies and gender inequality at work: A Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia entry. Retrived from http://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu/search/apachesolr_search/estes.

Forsyth S. & Polzer-Debruyne A. (2007). The organizational pay-offs for perceived work-life balance support. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource, 4(1): 113-123. Grover S. L. & Crooker K. J. (1995). Who Appreciates Family-Responsive Human Resource Policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48: 271-288. Hall D. T. (1990). Promoting work/family balance: An organization-change issue. Organizational Dynamics, 44: 5-18. Honeycutt T. L. & Rosen B. (1997). Family Friendly Human Resource Policies, Salary Levels, and Salient Identity as Predictors of Organizational Attraction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50: 271-290. Kalinic I. & Sforza C. (2012). Rapid internationalization of traditional SMESs: Between gradualist models and born globals. International Business Review, 21: 694-707. Kodz J., Harper H. & Dench S. (2002). Work-life balance: Beyond the rhetoric. Institute for Employment Studies 384, London: IES. Konrad A. M. & Mangel R. (2000). The Impact of Work-Life Programs on Firm Productivity. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1225-1237. Langford P. H., Parkes L. P. & Abbey J. (2006). Peace, passion and progress: Are they compatible?. InPsych, 28: 13-15. McDonald P., Guthrie D., Bradley L. & Shakespeare-Finch J. (2005). Investigating work-family policy aims and employee experiences. Employee Relations, 27(5): 478-494. Parkes L. P. & Langford P. H. (2008). Work-life balance or work-life alignment? A test of the importance of work-life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 14: 267-284. Pfeffer J. ( 1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 3. (pp. 1-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rousseau D. (1995). Psychological Contract in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. Russell G. (2002). Making a difference to work and family outcomes. Family Matters, 61: 76-78. Settoon R., Bennett N. & Liden R. (1996). Social Exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219-227. Schwartz F. N. (1989). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard Business Review, January – February: 65-76. Shepard E., Clifton T. & Kruse D. (1996, January). Flexible work hours and productivity: Some evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Relations, 35(1): 123-139. Spence A. M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87: 355-374. Thornthwaite L. (2004). Working time and work-family balance: A review of employees’ preferences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42: 166-184.


12

Turban D. B. & Keon T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2): 184-193. Wang P. & Walumbwa F. O. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60: 397-427. Yasbek P. (2004). The business case for firm-level work-life balance policies: a review of the literature. http://w.iaa.govt.nz/PDFs/FirmLevelWLB.pdf.

work-life balance: constraints and opportunities for an...

Documents