|
One
of the most obvious implications of the end of the
"job for life" society is that, if we wish to hold
on to our job, we need to demonstrate our utility to
the employer. For many, this is interpreted as
working long hard hours, and the "stay at work"
culture is often the result. But is this necessary?
Did anyone actually lose his or her job by going
home at a normal time? People lose their jobs either
because they are no good at it (known as being
fired) or because the company is not performing well
or is restructuring in some way (known as being made
redundant).
Indeed, for many employers, working late is not a
sign of loyalty; it is a sign of incompetence. If
you can't get the work done within a normal working
day, you are either badly organised or haven't
learned to say "no" to an over-demanding employer.
And if you need to work long hours on a regular
basis, you are likely to be less and less productive
over time because you are going to burn out and your
morale is going to decline. If this is the case, why
do we feel that employers are trying to deny us
balance in our work and life arrangements?
First of all, let's examine the term itself. I've
never liked the phrase "work-life balance". It
suggests that work is one activity and life is a
separate, conflicting activity. The truth is that
work is one part of our life and it competes for our
time against other activities in our life that we
wish to attend to. I prefer to use the simpler term
"life balance" or "life mix".
The
key factor in life balance is "time" and,
critically, work is perhaps the only use of our time
that we do not have control over. If we chose when,
and for how long we work, the number of hours we
allocate to it would not present a conflict. The
recent dispute between BA employees and the airline
at Heathrow was not some Luddite reaction to new
technology, it was born out of the fact that this
particular technology is a mechanism to allow BA to
manage to a fine degree when its employees come in
to work in accordance with passenger volumes. Of
course, BA has the right to choose which particular
hours it employs people for, but the fact remains
that the mechanism shifts time sovereignty from the
employee to the employer.
For
executives, the situation is slightly different.
While there are always going to be times when we
just need to be in the office in order to complete a
task like preparing for a meeting (though I'd wager
that the majority of these cases could easily be
extinguished with better organisation and planning),
employees do have more autonomy than manual workers
in terms of the hours spent at work. Contracts,
written and verbal, tend to operate on the basis
that we do the work expected of us, but that how and
when (within an agreed timeframe) is up to us. If
you're good and you can do it in a six-hour day, I
doubt you're going to be fired for not being there
the other one (although it is more likely that
you'll be given more work).
My
contention therefore is that, people who sign up to
the "stay at work" culture choose to do so. That's
fine by me. It seems that in our enlightened society
late working is a "bad thing". As a rich nation, we
should be spending less time at work and more time
doing mind expanding, fulfilling things with our
time, spending it with our friends and family, or
exercising. Yet, for many people, work is the most
fulfilling and stimulating activity in their life.
Why should it be the case that there is anything
wrong with workaholism? Is it wrong that these
people should work 80 hours or more each week?
The
problem is that the time sovereignty of employees is
gradually being eroded, largely through the
introduction of family friendly policies. Far from
giving workers flexibility, these policies shackle
the staff to the organisation, by creating such an
infrastructure of support that to leave would
require not just the hard enough task of adjusting
to the new employer, but also the need to put back
into place all the other arrangements that were
previously taken care of.
A
recent initiative I heard about comes from Asda. IVF
treatment allowance for women (5 days per annum) and
their partners (1½ days) is their latest big idea.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for IVF for those
that want it, and welcome the idea that employers
should allow their staff to take time off for it,
just as with any other medical matter. My point is
that such initiatives do not constitute a meaningful
step towards improving the life balance of employees
because improved life balance requires a fundamental
review of how we spend our lives, not whether we can
get a few hours off every few weeks for medical
treatment. The truth is that initiatives such as
this and flexible working, crèches and duvet days
are a response to the difficulties in attracting and
retaining staff.
Staff retention is much more a problem with larger
companies, which is why they are ahead of the game.
By upping the ante, these employers will achieve
short to medium term advantages which will be lost
when the rest of the industry finally works out what
they need to do to attract and retain staff. What's
more, the advantage is rarely, if ever, with the
staff. Instead, the expectations to perform and show
commitment is increased, usually with such strings
attached as "golden handcuffs", long notice periods,
and the provision of equipment for home-working
which at once allows flexibility to the employee and
ties them for even longer hours to the company -
they can never escape work.
When the playing field has been levelled, it will
simply be that employers will have removed any
argument or reason for us not to devote our lives to
them. We are moving away from, not towards, greater
control of our working lives, and the reason is that
we are allowing employers to take away our time
sovereignty. If I don't have an issue about picking
up the children from nursery because the nursery is
down on the first floor, then the company gets that
time from me and I don't get to choose how to
organise my life, or that of my children.
So
let's stop looking to our employers to provide us
with life balance - they are only concerned with our
work lives. It's up to us to take control of our
time and our job satisfaction. We are not exhausted
and de-motivated by running around trying to balance
our busy lives; we are exhausted and de-motivated
because we do not derive fulfilment from our lives.
Work should excite, engage, stimulate and give
meaning. It's up to us to decide the extent to which
we should pursue it in order to achieve those
objectives.
The
specific balance between work, family, hobbies,
health, relaxation and whatever else might be on
your own personal menu of time use is entirely up to
you. Only you know how much of each you need in any
given time period. It's my belief that over recent
years the pressure to "succeed" (a term that has now
taken an almost exclusive reference to professional
status or wealth) has encouraged us to spend more
time at work than our natural balance would
recommend.
Yet, these are simply excuses. We can change our
lifestyles if we want to, it is within our control
as long as we are prepared to reduce our material
desires and to take a good long look at what we do
for employment. I contend that the vast majority of
people have not chosen their current career but have
fallen into it more or less by serendipity. When
asked if they really "love" their jobs and why they
chose their careers most will be stumped, while many
professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc)
will refer to family pressure to secure their future
in a sensible occupation.
The
employee who does not know how to balance his life
in an optimally fulfilling way, or else is scared to
address the fact that the "balance" he wants does
not necessarily match the balance his wife wants for
him (I have deliberately alluded to men in this
scenario as I believe we are the ones who would
rather immerse ourselves in work than attend to our
emotions and relationships) is the one with a real
problem to address.
Moving on, sadly, is a scary alternative. "Better
the devil you know" is the usual response. "I may
not be happy but I'm paid well" doesn't sound like a
good trade off to me. Of course, we're all for more
life, as long as it doesn't mean a salary trade-off.
It's a pity that so many people either feel they
cannot afford to buy themselves any time away from
work, or else engage in the "stay at work" culture
that keeps them in the office until only a taxi can
get them home because they feel that somehow the
pole becomes less slippery after 5:30 pm. With that
attitude, regret is sure to follow at some time or
another.
The
argument I'm presenting is not that flexible working
and similar initiatives are wrong. I'm arguing that
individuals, that's you and me, not our employers,
need to identify what we really want for our work
and how to increase fulfilment from it and the rest
of our lives. By maximising our fulfilment, we
reduce stress and that's the key to what we seek
when we strive for better life balance. How we
manage to get the kids to the dentist or find time
to mow the lawn during the weekend follow on as easy
decisions when our priorities are in place.
©
Nick Gendler, 2003
Nick Gendler just about manages to keep his life
together as founder of Workjoy,
www.workjoy.co.uk, a company that helps people
to maximise fulfilment from their careers.
|
