work life balance (autosaved).doc1

8/7/2019 Work Life Balance (Autosaved).Doc1

1/33

Work-life Balance

Literature and Research Review


2/33

Executive Summary

Essentially, work-life balance is about helping employees better manage their work and non-

work time. The debate on work-life balance must include employers encouraging them to

understand and implement more effective work-life balance strategies.

The work-life balance agenda is more inclusive than the previous family-friendly agenda which

focused primarily on the needs of working mothers. However, many work-life balance policies

still focus on the care of young children and fail to address the needs of careers of older children

and adults and also those without care responsibilities.

Caring and other domestic responsibilities remains one of the key barriers to economic activity

for women. This leads to inequality between women and men both at home and at work.There is

a huge disparity between statutory paternity and maternity rights. The policy framework

perpetuates the gendered pattern of care and employment. Such disparity reduces parentalchoice. The UKs framework of rights is still among the lowest in Europe.

Rather than rely on legislative stimulus, the UK government work life balance campaign

promotes the business case. The evidence is positive and support for the idea of work-life

balance is fairly widespread, yet the adoption of the flexible working practices which employees

demand is still fairly low, within organisations, awareness of policies among managers and staff

is poor. Training, and therefore proper understanding of work life balance strategies, is rare.

Policies achieving their Atypical working patterns are promoted as pro-work-life balance.

However, atypical workers are often the most disadvantaged workers. Employees in these jobs

experience low levels of control over their work and time and have less access to work-life

policies. Researchers and policy makers must begin to examine and address this socioeconomic

divide. Men are more likely to have control over their working time, due to the nature of many

occupations which are mostly held by men.

However, many men work long hours and are unlikely to use flexibility to meet non-work

responsibilities. If more equitable and efficient workplaces is a key aim of the work life balancecampaign, then those involved in the campaign need to engage more effectively with debates on

equality and economic efficiency. The way work is organized and rewarded needs to be

fundamentally challenged.


3/33

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONWhat is Work-life Balance?

UK Policy Context

Drivers Behind Work-life BalanceDemands of Work

Demands of Life

Employee Demand for Work-life Balance

The Business CaseRecruitment and Retention

Reducing Absenteeism

Enhanced Commitment, Morale and

Productivity

Wheres the evidence?

Work-life Policies in PracticeIntroducing Policies

Responsibility for Policies

Organizational Barriers to an Improved Work life Balance

Conclusions

References

Further information


4/33

ACKNOWLEDG

EMENT

Report prepared by Suneela Ejaz Reg # L1F10MSMG0025 from

the STUDENT DEPT OF MANAGEMENTSCIENCES, UNIVERSTY OF CENTRAL

PUNJAB. Additional materials and support provided by PROF.IRFAN SALEEM, UNIVERSTYOF CENTRAL PUNJAB.


5/33

INTRODUCTION:-

Public awareness and understanding of the term work-life balance has grown dramatically in

recent years. The high level of interest among employers, consultants, and the media has

generated a healthy business in conferences, websites and guides. It is a growth area in academia

too, encompassing diverse disciplines including economics, social policy, feminism, sociology,

industrial relations, human resource management, health and psychology. This publication brings

together material from these diverse sources to provide an overview of recent research, current

thinking and future debates on the key work-life policy issues.

WHAT IS WORK LIFE BALANE?

EMPLOYMENT BASED ON EMERGENT NEW VALUES, WHICH DOES NOT

DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THOSE WITH CARING OR OTHER NON-WORK

RESPONSIBILITIES, AND WHICH PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO

REALISE THEIR FULL POTENTIAL IN WORK AND NON-WORK DOMAINS.

Lewis (1996:1)

The Work-Family Challenge: Rethinking Employment

The 1990s saw the emergence of family-friendly policies primarily designed around womens

experiences in combining care responsibilities with paid employment. However, family-friendly

policies began to attract negative reactions from people without such caring responsibilities. This

backlash was probably exaggerated (Hogarth et al. (2000) found that 43% of employers thought

work-life balance practices unfair to some staff, yet only 26% of employees thought that theywere unfair to people like them) but it did highlight the limitations of the family-friendly agenda.

For the idea that employers benefit from helping employees to lead more balanced lives to gain

acceptance, it had to become more inclusive.

WORK-LIFE BALANCE ISNT ONLY ABOUT FAMILIES AND CHILDCARE. NOR IS


6/33

IT ABOUT WORKING LESS. ITS ABOUT WORKING SMART.ABOUT BEING FRESH

ENOUGH TO GIVE ALL YOU NEED TO BOTH WORK AND HOME, WITHOUT

JEOPARDISING ONE FOR THE OTHER. AND ITS A NECESSITY FOR EVERYONE,

AT WHATEVER YOURE STAGE IN LIFE.

The Essential Guide to Work-life Balance

Essentially work-life balance is about helping employees better manage their work and non-work

time. A number of policies can facilitate this by: reducing hours (e.g. part-time, job-share);

changing when hours is worked (e.g. compressed working week, flexitime, term-time working);

where hours are worked (e.g. home working);

Or providing periods of paid or unpaid leave (e.g. compassionate leave, parental leave, studyleave, career break). Appropriate balance and the means of getting there depend on individual

and business needs.

UK Policy Context:-

Regulation and Best Practice

European employment policy recognizes the need to change the work-home interface. The equal

opportunities pillar of the European Employment Strategy priorities the reconciling of work and

family life as a tool for achieving greater gender parity.

Several pieces of legislation have been introduced in the UK because of European commitments,

including:

Equal treatment rights for part-time workers.

Working Time Directive imposing a maximum working week and minimum rest and leave

periods.


7/33

Parental Leave

Time off for an emergency involving dependants

Extended Maternity Leave

Recent developments have seen the introduction of paid paternity leave, the right to request

flexible working for parents of children fewer than 6 and extended maternity rights. These

legislative changes signal a major shift in UK employment policy. British employers have a long

tradition of opposing the regulation of the employment relationship on the basis that it imposes

costs which stifle economic growth and reduce flexibility (CBI 1997), an assertion perhaps

heavier of rhetoric than reality (see Taylor 2002; Bielenski et al.2001).While the present

legislature is moving away from a policy of low employment protection, the pressure towardsminimal regulation remains. Running in parallel with the framework of basic rights is a

government sponsored work-life balance campaign which promotes the business case for helping

employees reduce work-life conflict. It is hoped that by persuading employers that it is in their

best interests to voluntarily adopt the work-life policies which suit the needs of their business

and their employees, the need for legislation is reduced.

EMPLOYERS WORLD-WIDE IS RECOGNISING OF THEIR OWN ACCORD THAT

IT MAKES GOOD BUSINESS SENSE TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR

WORKFORCE TO ACHIEVE BETTER WORK-LIFE BALANCES WITH A PAY-

BACKOF INCREASED MORALE, BETTER EFFECTIVENESS AND PRODUCTIVITY,

ANDTHE ABILITY TO EMBRACE CHANGE.

Comparative Statutory Rights

A recent review of statutory family leave and pay found the UK is low compared to other

European countries but is more generous than the USA and Australia, who dont have any

provision comparable to maternity, paternity or parental leave. The UK gives 2 weeks paid

paternity leave, parental leave at threshold levels (13 weeks), very low state support for child


8/33

care yet, at 52 weeks, has the longest statutory maternity leave in Europe. This package presents

some problems. The legal basis of maternity leave is to protect the health and safety of new

mothers in the workplace - providing adequate time for rest and recuperation after child birth. In

Denmark for example, maternity leave is only 14 weeks while in Germany it is 8 weeks. The

governments decision not to enhance parental leave but extend maternity leave reinforces the

gendered division of care responsibilities and reduces parental choice. The disparity between

mothers and fathers rights may well be tested in the European courts.

Voluntary Employer Provision:-

A national survey conducted for the Department for Education and Employment (Hogarth et al.

2000) found that the principle of work life balance had wide-spread support, as long as it did notinterfere with business needs:

62% OF EMPLOYERS AND 80% OF EMPLOYEES AGREED WITH THE

STATEMENT:EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BALANCE THEIR WORK AND

HOME LIVES

59% OF EMPLOYERS AND 54% OF EMPLOYEES AGREED THAT EMPLOYEES MUST

NOT EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THEIR WORKING PATTERN IF TO DO SO

WOULD DISRUPT THE BUSINESS Hogarth et al. (2000) Work-Life Balance 2000: Baseline

Study11

Yet this support appeared to be more theoretical than practical. Other than part-time hours

(offered by 80% of employers), flexible working practices were rare:

22% HAD EMPLOYEES WORKING FROM HOME (MOSTLY ON AN OCCASIONAL

BASIS),

JUST OVER 10% HAD FLEXITIME


9/33

COMPRESSED WORKING WEEKS, JOB SHARE AND TERM TIME WORKING WERE

EACH OFFERED BY LESS THAN 5% OF EMPLOYERS

20% OFFERED NO FLEXIBLE WORKING AT ALL.

Hogarth et al. (2000)

Work-Life Balance 2000: Baseline study

Leave provision was higher with over 90% of employers providing bereavement leave, 45%

paternity leave, over half some sort of careers leave, and just fewer than 30% career breaks and

study leave. However, practical support with care responsibilities was extremely low. Only 2%

of employers had a workplace crche, 1% offered subsidized nurseries and 3% helped financially

in other ways (e.g. child care vouchers).

Formal policy provision also tends to be segregated in certain types of organization. An analysis

of the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey found that family-friendly or flexible

working arrangements were more common in larger organizations and in the public sector and

where there were:

RECOGNISED UNIONS

HUMAN RESOURCE SPECIALISTS

GOOD PERFORMANCE

MANAGERIAL TECHNIQUES TO INCREASE EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

MORE INVOLVEMENT OF EMPLOYEES IN DECISION-MAKING

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES POLICIES THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED AND MONITORED

LARGER PROPORTIONS OF WOMEN IN THE WORKFORCE

A HIGHLY EDUCATED WORKFORCE USING DISCRETION

Dex, S. and Smith, C. (2002)

The nature and pattern of family-friendly employment policies in

Britain


10/33

The results of national surveys however, should be treated with caution. They often only cover

what is formally available to employees and cannot capture the effect that policies have on

employees. They also exclude the informal, ad hoc provision often found in small and medium

sized enterprises (SMEs) (Bevan et al.

1999; Dex and Scheibl 2002).Unfortunately there are no disaggregated data for Scottish

employers although research conducted in the Scottish financial services industry by Bond et al.

(2002) found similar patterns of provision. Coverage of work-life policies was more extensive

and formalized in large companies that recognized unions than in those with staff associations or

no representative forum. Flexible working practices designed to meet operational and labor

market needs, such as part-time working, were better established than those designed to help

meet employee work-life demands.


11/33

Drivers Behind

Work-life Balance

One of the major drivers behind the introduction of family-

friendly and work life policies was the increased

participation of women in paid employment. In 1999

17% of UK women of working age devoted their time

exclusively to looking after home and family; in 2001this figure was 13% representing 600,000 fewer in just

two years (ONS 2002)

DEMAND OF WORK:-


12/33

Atypical Working

The work-life balance campaign promotes certain types of atypical working to help employeescombine care responsibilities with paid employment and employers to meet operational needs.

Even with new equal treatment rights, part-time work can be less rewarding than fulltime work.

For example part-timers have less access to occupational pensions because they are

disproportionately concentrated in sectors and workplaces which dont provide such schemes

(Fagan 2000)

PART-TIME WORKERS, THE MAJORITY OF WHOM ARE WOMEN, HAVE

LESSCONTROL OVER THEIR WORKING TIME AND TEND TO BE OCCUPIED IN

UNSKILLED POSITIONS AND RECEIVE LESS TRAINING AND LOWER PAY.

EFILWC (2001)

For some, atypical working patterns are a positive experience. Purcell et al. (1999) found that

managerial and clerical workers, especially those with scarce expertise, did benefit from working

flexibly. However, for manual and lower skilled workers flexible working meant insecurity and

unpredictability rather than better work-life balance. Unpredictable and unstructured flexibility

involving incursions into family time is more likely to be experienced by low-skilled, part-time,temporary workers and shift workers.

La Valle et al.s (2002) study on the effect of atypical working hours on family life found that

working unsociable hours was driven by a15 need to reduce or eliminate child care costs with

parents or other careers taking care responsibilities in shifts. Shift parenting could be a positive

experience, sometimes allowing more time with children, but for many it meant a reduction in

the amount of family time spent as a group.

Long Working Hours

The UK has the highest proportion of people working long hours in Europe. The European labor

force survey shows that almost 30% of full-time employees work in excess of 46 hours per week,


13/33

compared to an EU average of 12%. In 1984, 2.8 million people were working more than 48

hours a week. By 1998, this had risen to over 4 million people, an increase of over 40% (TUC

2000). The UK also has the greatest dispersion of hours worked by employees in Europe (Fagan

2000). in 1999 the average of total hours worked per person (including part-time workers) was

1720 hours per year. More than, for example, France, Germany and Sweden but less than Spain,Norway, and the US (Evans et al.2001).

Long working hours are more likely to be experienced by men, especially fathers, while part-

time hours worked predominantly by women have fallen a strikingly inefficient use of

resources. The Working Time Directive 1998 imposed an upper limit of 48 hours a week but

exemptions and opt-out clauses have seriously mitigated its impact. All employees whose hours

are not or only partly predetermined or measured by their employer are not protected. This

removes all salaried workers from the protection of the regulations even though it is theseemployees, especially managers and professionals, who work the longest hours of all

(Hogarth et al. 2000).

It is regular additional hours which are problematic for employees (Kodz et al. 1998). Burch ell

et al. (1999) found that out of 340 employees, half felt that their family life had suffered because

of their working hours. The most commonly cited problems were feeling tired and irritable, not

seeing enough of partners and children and restricting the social life of the family. La Valle et al.

(2002) also found long hours to be associated with lower levels of involvement in childrensactivities and the frequent disruption of family life. Scase and Scales (1998) found that 42% of

fathers working a standard working week talk to their children most days whereas only 26% of

fathers working over 48 hours do the same.16 The health problems for the individual working

long hours are also considerable. As well as being less likely to take regular exercise, people who

continue to work long hours have a greater likelihood of health problems. Even if hours are

reduced, health prospects do not return to the levels of those who have always worked shorter

hours (Scase and Scales 1998).


14/33

Work Intensification and Stress

Employees report that the main reason they work long hours is to get the job done (Taylor 2002).

Of the employees surveyed by Burch ell et al. (1999):

64% THOUGHT THE SPEED OF THEIR WORK HAD INCREASED

80% THOUGHT THE SKILLS REQUIREMENT OF THEIR JOB HAD INCREASED

78% THOUGHT THE VARIETY OF TASKS THEY HAD TO PERFORM HAD

INCREASED AND

75% THOUGHT THEIR LEVEL OF RESPONSIBILITY HAD INCREASED

Burch ell et al. (1999)

Job Insecurity and Work Intensification

A number of factors have contributed to this trend. A technological advance, especially the

proliferation of PC use, has increased the volume of work which can be done and thereby raised

expectations of what should be done. The down-sizing and restructuring of the 1990s has also

increased this pressure and heightened feelings of job insecurity. The intensification and

restructuring process may have produced some short-term gains but the long term ill-effects ofstress on individuals and society are considerable. Pressures from managers, colleagues, low

staffing levels and especially high quantities of work are significantly associated with poor

psychological health and tensions at home (Burch ell et al. 1999).


15/33

Demands of Life

Combining Care of Children and Paid Employment

One of the major drivers behind the introduction of family-friendly and work-life policies was

the increased participation of women in paid employment. In 1999 17% of UK women of

working age devoted their time exclusively to looking after home and family; in 2001 this figure

was 13% representing 600,000 fewer in just twoYears (ONS 2002).

Women have become increasingly involved in paid employment and men have become more

involved with the care of the family. Time use studies have found that since the 1970s, the

amount of time fathers spend directly interacting with their child has increased overall and risen

steeply since 1985 (Gershuny 2001). Qualitative research conducted by Hatten et al. (2002) for

the Equal Opportunities Commission found that few of the fathers they interviewed took on

equal responsibility for all care-related tasks, but few took a traditional, hands-off approach. The

trend is towards men taking a greater role at home but it is worth noting that the amount of time

spent on paid work and care is not static. In their study of rural communities in Scotland and the

North of England, Mauthner et al. (2001) found that both mothers and fathers increase their

commitment to paid work or caring according to the age of the children, their employment

situation and the needs of the family.

While there is a desire among men, especially younger men, for greater involvement in family

life, fathers time still only accounts for one third of all parental contact (Gershuny 2001) and

their role as provider is still a powerful source of identity (Warin et al. 1999). Women take the

majority of responsibility for the care of children and the home evidenced by the high proportion

of mothers working part-time and the long working hours of fathers. An Australian study (a

country with a similar profile of maternal employment as the UK) found that motherhood adds

more to the overall workload (at home and work) of women than fatherhood ads to the workload

of men (Craig 2002).

The Ageing PopulationScotlands population is ageing and is set to decline from 5.11 million to under 5 million within

the next twenty years (GROS 2002). As the birth rate falls, the dependency ratio between the

elderly and the working age population increases threatening future economic growth across

Europe (Duncan 2002).Womens aspirations for social and economic independence are only a

contributory factor in18 declining birth rates. However, the incompatibility of work, or at least

well paid, rewarding work, with childbearing has to be addressed if having babies is to be an


16/33

attractive proposition for future generations of young Scots. This is why work-family

reconciliation is prioritized by EU employment policy. The demographic time bomb will also

result in increasing proportions of people with adult-care responsibilities. As the capacity of the

welfare state is reduced, the burden of care (for elders and the chronically sick or disabled) falls

on relatives and friends.Carers Scotland have estimated that Scotland will see a 60% rise in the

number of careers needed by 2037, increasing the chances of someone aged 30-54 being a

career for an adult by 88%.

Research into the current generation of working careers over 50 found that almost half were

combining work with the care of an elderly or disabled relative or friend, a grandchild or their

own child. This informal care was undertaken equally by men and women, full and part-timers

and at all levels of the organization but the level of care provided by women tended to be more

extensive. Stress, tiredness, ill-health and lack of leisure time affected many of these careers and

although they explicitly expressed a desire not to allow their care responsibilities to affect their

work, opportunities for career advancement were affected (Mooney et al. 2002). Recent

developments in the scrapping of the statutory retirement age and improving the flexibility of

both state and occupational pension schemes are to be welcomed. The earnings rule that reduces

the amount of state pension paid to people who work after retirement age and final salary

schemes prevent part-time working in the lead up to retirement. More flexibility is needed, not

only to fight poverty but to help older people manage their care responsibilities.

The Time Squeeze Part of the motivation for the work-life balance campaign is the notion that

people are under increasing pressure of time and have less free time than in the past. However,

research charting changes in time use in northern Europe and North America between the 1960s

and 1990s found relative stability in leisure time. Sullivan and Gershuny (2001) suggest that the

time squeeze may be limited to19 specific groups, for instance, dual earner couples with

dependent children and lone parents. The number of activities engaged in simultaneously has

increased and leisure activities involve greater effort and expenditure, perhaps reassuring in a

perception of greater time pressure.

Work-life Conflict

Given the competing demands of work and life, it is unsurprising that many employees

experience conflict between the two domains. Work-life conflict can affect any employee but

people with care responsibilities are more likely to suffer most because of the greater demandson their time. Research has tended to find that mothers, particularly those with young children,

are less satisfied with their work-life balance than other groups of workers (Saltztein et al. 2001;

Galinsky and Bond 1996). Feelings of work-life conflict have been associated with, inter alia,

psychological and physical health problems; marital and family relationship problems, increased

sickness absence and decreased life and job satisfaction (Evans and Steptoe 2002; Crouter et al.

2001; Westman 2001; Kossek and Ozeki 1998)an 2001; Kossek and Oze Employee Demand for


17/33

Work-life Balance Employees are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the effects of long

working hours, work intensification and work-life conflict. A survey of working time preferences

across Europe found that over half of employees would prefer to work fewer hours in exchange

for lower earnings (EFILWC 2001). Within Britains workplaces, satisfaction with working

hours has declined considerably over the last ten years, especially among men. In 1992, 36% of

male senior managers/professionals and 34% of male semi and unskilled manual workers were

satisfied or completely satisfied with their working hours. By 2000 this had dropped to 16% and

14% respectively (Taylor 2002).Hogarth et al. (2000) found high levels of demand for flexible

working practices.20 When asked about their working time preferences:

47% WANTED FLEXITIME

35% WANTED A COMPRESSED WORKING WEEK

26% WANTED TO WORK PART-TIME

25% WANTED TERM-TIME WORKING

16% WANTED TO JOB-SHARE

Hogarth et al (2000)

Work-Life Balance 2000: Baseline study

Organizations have been slow to respond to this demand. Levels of work-life balance provision

are low and the type of flexibility available is often not in tune with employee needs. The most

popular arrangements among employees, flextime and compressed working week, entail greater

control over working hours but most employers only offered reduced hours: 80% of employersoffer part-time working but only 19% have flextime and less than 5% a compressed working

week (Hogarth et al. 2000). So what can be done to persuade employers to close this gap?


18/33

Work-life Policies

In Practice

Policies have the best chance of success if the people

using them, employees and line managers, are fully

involved in their design. Lack of consultation can result

in policies which do not match individuals needs or

cannot be used because of operational constraint


19/33

Introducing policies

Policies have the best chance of success if the people using them, employees and line managers,

are fully involved in their design. Lack of consultation can result in policies which do not match

individuals needs or cannot be used because of operational constraints. Larger organizations are

more likely to have formal work-life provision. These policies are usually developed centrally by

HR specialists with input from higher level business managers and employee representatives.

Managers and the staff on the ground often feel they have little influence in this process.

However, if employees believe that they will not be treated sympathetically by their line

manager, without the legitimacy which a formal entitlement can give, they will find it difficult to

make the request. It also reduces the organizations ability to take a more strategic view of the

work-life agenda (Casey et al. 1997)

Responsibility for Policies

Responsibility for implementing work-life policies has increasingly been devolved from HR to

line managers. Giving line managers this responsibility means that decisions can be made more

quickly and tailored to suit the needs of the individual and the department while HR staff are

freed up to take on a more strategic role (Sisson and Storey 2000).However, this approach does

require some investment:

LINE MANAGERS IN GENERAL WITHOUT SUPPORT FROM PERSONNEL

SPECIALISTS ARE UNLIKELY TO ACQUIRE SUFFICIENT COMPETENCE IN PEOPLE

MANAGEMENT SKILLS TO IMPROVE ORGANISATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Gennard and Kelly (1997)


20/33

Several studies report that this investment is not being made. Training is rare, and e-mail and

occasional updates to handbooks is relied upon for communicating these sometimes complex

policies (Bond and Wise 2003). In Kodz et al.s (2002) research of six organizations considered

to be leading work-life balance employers, managers welcomed the power of decision-making

but felt they had been abandoned with the policies having been given no training or guidelines in

how to operate them. Managers in Yeandle et al.s (2002) study had also not received training

nor been consulted before being given the additional responsibility. It is therefore not surprising

that line manager and employee awareness of company work-life policies is often patchy. Given

that some of these policies are a legal right, this low awareness is concerning.

Lack of training coupled with poor policy awareness leads to inconsistencies in application both

between and within departments. The tension between being responsive in individual cases and

being seen to treat requests equally can cause problems for managers (Kodz et al.2002; Bond et

al.2002). If an employee feels that their work-life policy request has not been dealt with fairly

there is a tendency to compare their treatment unfavorably with that of other employees. While

HR often provides post-hoc support, these staff relations problems could be greatly reduced

through training.

Many work-life policies only become relevant when personal circumstances change and a

detailed knowledge of every possible company policy is not a realistic or desirable goal.

However, the investment in developing work-life policies is wasted if similar efforts are not

made to effectively communicate the policy message and provide accessible information and

support.

Organizational Barriers to anImproved Work-life Balance

Resources

Employers perceive the main disadvantage of work-life policies to be the cost and disruption of

dealing with the employee being absent from the workplace, especially if they have specialist

skills (DTI 2000; Forth et al. 1997). Employees doing similar jobs can be easily substituted with

another, increasing flexibility. For example, in the supermarket and banks studied by Yeandle et

al. (2002), frontline employees, who performed generic work, were able to informally swap

shifts without adversely impacting operations. Where employees jobs are specialized this is not

always possible. Resource constraints can also reduce flexibility; a problem often experienced by

small businesses though not exclusively. Even in large organizations with substitutable


21/33

employees, where cost cutting has led to understaffing, managers can find implementing

company work-life policy extremely difficult (Yeandle et al. 2002; Bond et al. 2002; Kodz et al.

2002). In these circumstances work-life policies can have a negative impact on other staff:

DUE TO CUTS WE ARE SHORT STAFFED IF ITS LEAVE FOR EMERGENCY

CARE THEN WE JUST HAVE TO COPE SOMEHOW, BUT IT DOES INCREASE THE

STRESS ON OTHER MEMBERS OF STAFF.

Council Manager quoted in Yeardley et al. (2002:14)\

Employed careers and family-friendly employment policies

Job type

The ability to exercise some control over ones environment can make the environment more

rewarding or less threatening. This is why working practices which increase employee control

can reduce stress and work-life conflict. Galinsky and Stein (1990) found that employees who

have the power to solve work problems were likely to suffer lower stress and felt their job caused

less interference with their life. Thomas and Gangster (1995) found that schedules which gave a

group of nurses more control over their time reduced work life conflict and symptoms of stress.

Absences and intentions to be absent also decrease as control over working time increases.29 In

customer facing jobs (e.g. retail) or where specialist equipment is needed (e.g. factory work), it is

difficult to exercise such control. Policies like flexi time or home working can be more difficult

to operate in such occupations as this call centre manager explains:

WE HAVE SHIFTS TO FIT OUR OPERATIONAL NEEDS AND, IF SOMEONE IS DUE

TO START ON THE PHONES AT 10,WE REALLY NEED THEM TO BE THERE AT 10

Call Centre Manager quoted in Bond et al. (2002: 48)

Family-friendly working? Putting policy into practice

Employees in lower status, roles and some part-time workers are more likely to be in low-

control jobs, disproportionately disadvantaging women. Dex and Smith (2002) found thatemployees with a greater amount of discretion (often male professional and managerial staff )

were more likely to be offered flexible working arrangements while female dominated

workplaces were less likely to have access to flex time or home working. La Valle et al.s (2002)

study on the effect of unsocial working hours on family life found similar occupational

differences. Senior and professional employees were more likely to experience predictability and


22/33

control over their working hours while those in lower status jobs felt they had no choice in the

hours they worked.

The Politics of Time

Intensified workloads and pressures to perform have made time a valuable commodity. How

employees use this commodity the quantity and timing of working hours - is crucial to how

they are perceived by the organization:

THE NOTION THAT TIME REPRESENTS MONEY, AND HENCE SYMBOLISES

PRODUCTIVITY, COMMITMENT AND PERSONAL VALUE IS WIDESPREAD.

Lewis (1997:16)

Reduced working patterns are gradually gaining acceptance for lower status jobs but despite

evidence of negative consequences and widespread employee dissatisfaction, organizations

continue to reward long working hours. Employees less willing or able to give their time freely

to work are often not considered suitable for the demands of managerial work.30 Despite modern

management theory, it seems many organizations still reward input rather than output. People

working part-time or flexibly, especially in senior roles, often report having to work harder to

justify their position: a reduction in hours and therefore pay is rarely matched by a

commensurate reduction in workload or expected output. To compound the problems of a long

hours culture, managers are rarely given guidance on how to design part-time jobs. Part-time

workers often have to employ more sophisticated time management techniques and work harderto complete tasks usually with greater non-work demands on their time. This raises the question:

why do people who work long hours get paid more for working less efficiently? (Lewis 2001;

Epstein et al. 1999)

Long hours are frequently attributed to work intensification but a group of American researchers

have been working with organizations to uncover and resolve the inefficient working practices

which can result in long hours:

[THE] ATTITUDE THAT THE BEST EMPLOYEE IS THE ONE WHO SPENDS THE

MOST TIME AT WORK HAS HELPED FOSTER THE BELIEF THAT WORK OUTPUT IS

DIRECTLY,AND LINEARLY,RELATED TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON WORK

AN IDEA WHICH REINFORCES THE NORMS SURROUNDING LONG WORK

HOURS, AND, IN TURN, REINFORCES THE WORK PRACTICES THAT


23/33

UNWITTINGLY LEAD TO THE NEED TO SPEND THESE LONG HOURS AT WORK.

Rapoport et al. (2002:49)

Beyond Work-Family Balance

Research in several leading US organizations has found that by focusing on the way work is

carried out and getting employees to identify the inefficiencies which cause long hours, the

culture can be successfully challenged. An example they provide is of a marketing team which

operated in a continual state of crisis, working through the night to meet deadlines. The output of

this behavior was praised and rewarded but the costs had gone unnoticed: other staff had to put

their work on hold while the team took time off to recover, delaying the next project which set

up the need to work all night, reducing the quality of work and extending completion time

because of tiredness. The researchers helped the team identify and break this cycle.31 It is not

only in professional and managerial spheres where putting in extra hours is viewed favorably.

Dex and Scheibl (2002) found that some smaller firms operated an informal balance sheet.

Employees built up credit by working longer when needed and cashing it for flexible hours later.

Scottish mothers working in no managerial jobs who did not have access to formal policies felt

they had to build a reputation as a reliable employee who did not take time off for sickness or

allow family commitments to impinge on working time. This increased their chances of their

manager granting time off for a non-work emergency (Backett-Milburn et al. 2001).This give

and take between managers and staff has also been found in organizations with formal policies.

Line managers are more likely to accommodate requests for flexibility, or use their discretion

(for example to grant paid leave) if they feel that employees have or will reciprocate this favorsby helping out during busy periods (Bond et al. 2002; Yeandle et al. 2002).This basis for

decision-making is potentially problematic because it disadvantages the people who need these

benefits most: those with dependants, especially sole and multiple caring responsibilities.

Supportive Culture

Having policies in a staff handbook is not sufficient to promote employee work-life balance.

Employees also have to feel that the organization will be supportive of them adjusting their

pattern because of non-work responsibilities. Flexible working patterns are becoming

increasingly common but full-time, permanent employment is still the dominant norm mainly

because men rarely work flexibly or fully utilize leave policies. The impact of this gendered take

up is two-fold. Firstly, people who use flexible working and leave often contradict the time

politics of an organization (see above) and are therefore viewed as marginal (Lewis and Taylor

1996;Hutton Raabe 1996). Secondly, male take-up of work-life policies is perceived as less

legitimate. This Organizational Barriers to an Improved Work-life Balance Resources Employers


24/33

perceive the main disadvantage of work-life policies to be the cost and disruption of dealing with

the employee being absent from the workplace, especially if they have specialist skills (DTI

2000; Forth et al. 1997). Employees doing similar jobs can be easily substituted with another,

increasing flexibility. For example, in the supermarket and banks studied by Yeandle et al.

(2002), frontline employees, who performed generic work, were able to informally swap shifts

without adversely impacting operations. Where employees jobs are specialized this is not

always possible. Resource constraints can also reduce flexibility; a problem often experienced by

small businesses though not exclusively. Even in large organizations with substitutable

employees, where cost cutting has led to understaffing, managers can find implementing

company work-life policy extremely difficult (Yeandle et al. 2002; Bond et al. 2002; Kodz et al.

2002). In these circumstances work-life policies can have a negative impact on other staff:

DUE TO CUTS WE ARE SHORT STAFFED IF ITS LEAVE FOR EMERGENCY

CARE THEN WE JUST HAVE TO COPE SOMEHOW, BUT IT DOES INCREASE THE

STRESS ON OTHER MEMBERS OF STAFF.

Council Manager quoted in Yeandle et al. (2002:14)

Employed careers and family-friendly employment policies

.

Reasons for Using Work-life Policies

An important feature of the current work-life balance debate is that it should be open to all

employees, not just those with child care Responsibilities. In practice, this idea has made little

headway. Despite demographic changes, the care of young children mainly by women remains

the focus for national and company level policy (see 1.2.2).The new right to request flexible

working is only available to parents of children under 6 but people with other responsibilities

could significantly benefit from this right.Yeandle et al. (2002) found parents struggling to care

for teenagers during holidays and after school, as support and services for older children are

particularly poor. Phillips et al. (2002) found that careers of older adults are more likely to try to

cope with their responsibilities on their own using holidays and lieu days rather than seek formal

assistance manager in an investment management firm explains:

IF SOMEONE WANTED TO TAKE [PARENTAL LEAVE] THE COMPANY

WOULD HAVE TO LET THEM ... BUT I THINK THE MAN WHO DID ASK

FOR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A BRAVE MAN. HE WOULD TAKE QUITE


25/33

A LOT OF RIBBING. WE DO STILL HAVE DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Manager interviewed in Bond et al. (2002)

Family-friendly working: Putting policy into practice

Managers in female dominated workplaces have reported frustration at the gendered take-up of

work-life policies as it puts pressure on resources which employers of their employees male

partners dont have to bear (Bond et al. 2002; Lewis 2001). Unsupportive cultures reflect and

perpetuate the broader societal belief that the integration of work and family life is an individual,

not a public responsibility (Brannon et al.1997). In comparative research of Europeans, Lewis et

al. (2002) found that the British participants had low expectations of support in their role as

career from either state or employer and thought any support given had to be justified on

business case grounds (mirroring the UK policy approach). It is persuasively argued that

individuals who feel that demanding support or challenging existing practices is not wholly

legitimate, will be over-grateful for any support given and be reluctant to demand furtherchanges (Lewis and Smithson 2002; Lewis 1997). Kodz et al.s (2002) research found that

because line managers were always expressing concerns about meeting business needs

employees sensed that their request for flexible working would not be treated sympathetically

and did not ask. Without this internal pressure for chain the status quo perpetuates.

Conclusions

Progress so far

Despite widespread support for the idea of work-life balance, compared to the high level of

employee demand, the provision and uptake of work-life policies is still low. The rhetoric is

inclusive but policies are still often focused on meeting the needs of parents of young children.

The Role of Regulation Given the slow progress of the best practice approach, more legislative

stimulus may be needed to give the work-life balance a stronger foothold in British

organizational life. Formal policies at both organizational and national level are important for

giving legitimacy, reducing the reliance on the relationship between managers and staff.

Constructive engagement with and support for SMEs in developing and implementing the

policies to meet their needs is essential.


26/33

Giving Work-life Policies a Chance

Employers assert that voluntary policies are better than legislation because they allow

operational and workforce needs to b e taken into account. But evidence suggests that managers

and employees are rarely consulted, often resulting in policies that are not needed or cannot be

used because of operational constraints. The implementation process is also too frequently left to

chance. Awareness of policies among managers and staff is often poor and training can be rare,

reducing the chances of work-life policies achieving their objectives.

Women and MenWhile atypical working such as part-time working and unsocial hours are promoted as a tool for

improving work-life balance, the employee experience is often poor. Low state support for child

care and cultural norms has led women into part-time jobs which are designed primarily to meet

operational needs. Women are therefore more likely to be in lower paid, lower status jobs with

little opportunity for training or advancement however these jobs rarely35 offer the levels of

control and autonomy, essential for operating work-life policies and reducing work-life conflict.

Conversely, men are more likely to have control over their working time but are unlikely to use

this flexibility to meet non-work responsibilities. UK men work the longest hours in Europe and

organizations still reward those who give their time exclusively to work. Womens employment

situation cannot be improved while this norm dominates. It is important to directly engage in

mens work-life needs and encourage a more equal distribution of paid employment and care

responsibilities between the sexes. The regulatory regime therefore needs more careful

consideration. The huge disparity between paternity and maternity rights precludes fathers from

being involved in the early years, setting up a gendered pattern of care and employment and

reducing parental choice.

Future DirectionsSuch data have been used wherever possible but it is clear that more work is needed to build an

informed policy debate in Scotland. Research has focused heavily on the glass ceiling at the

expense of the sticky floor. It is employees at the lower levels of organizations who experience

the least amount of control over their work and time and have less access to work-life policies.

There is evidence that helping employees more effectively manage their work and non-worktime is good for business but these win-win solutions are not achieved by offering atypical

hours which suit the needs of the business. Similarly, granting requests for flexible working

practices without properly designing the new job is unlikely to achieve the best outcome for the

individual or the business. Work-life policies cannot be seen as a perk. To challenge rigid and

inefficient working practices and reduce rising stress levels, the way work is organized and

rewarded has to be fundamentally challenged.


27/33

References

General and Policy

Bond, S. and Wise, S. (2003) Family leave policies and devolution to the line Personnel

Review, Vol. 32 No. 1., pp.58 72

Burke R.J. (1988) Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 3, pp. 287 302

Deven, F. and Moss, P. (2002) Leave arrangements for parents: overview and future

outlookCommunity,Work and Family, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp 237 255

Dex, S. and Smith, C. (2002) the nature and pattern of family-friendly employment policies

in Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press for the JosephRowntree Foundation.www.jrf.org.uk

DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2000) Work and Parents: Competitiveness and

Choice. London: DTI Green Paper.

Forth, J., Lissenburgh, S., Calendar, C. and Millward, N. (1997) Family-friendly Working

Arrangements in Britain, 1996. London: Department for Education and Employment

Gershuny, J. (2001) Changing Times. New York: Oxford University Press GROS (General

Register of Scotland)(2002) Population of Scotland 2000- based.www.gro-scotland.gov.uk

Hogarth,T., Hasluck, C. and Pierre, G. (2000) Work-Life Balance 2000: Baseline Study ofWork-Life Balance Practices in Great Britain. London:DfEE

IRS (Industrial Relations Services) (2000) Who Cares? IRS Employment Trends. No. 697,

pp. 2 16

Putting policy into practice.York:York Publishing Service for the Joseph

Rowntree Foundation.www.jrf.org.uk

Bond, S. and Wise, S. (2003) Family leave policies and devolution to the line

Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 1., pp.58 - 72

Burke R.J. (1988) Some antecedents and consequences of work-family

Conflict Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 3, pp. 287 - 302

Deven, F. and Moss, P. (2002) Leave arrangements for parents: overview and


28/33

Future outlookCommunity, Work and Family, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp 237 - 255

Dex, S. and Smith, C. (2002) The nature and pattern of family-friendly

Employment policies in Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press for the Joseph

Rowntree Foundation.www.jrf.org.uk

DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2000) Work and Parents:

Competitiveness and Choice. London: DTI Green Paper.

Forth, J., Lissenburgh, S., Callender, C. and Millward, N. (1997) Family-friendly

Working Arrangements in Britain, 1996. London: Department for Education

and Employment

Gershuny, J. (2001) Changing Times. New York: Oxford University Press

GROS (General Register of Scotland)(2002) Population of Scotland 2000-

based.www.gro-scotland.gov.uk

Hogarth,T., Hasluck, C. and Pierre, G. (2000) Work-Life Balance 2000: Baseline

Study of Work-Life Balance Practices in Great Britain. London:DfEE

IRS (Industrial Relations Services) (2000) Who Cares? IRS Employment

Trends. No. 697, pp. 2 - 16

The Industrial Society (2001) Managing Best Practice No. 85: Flexible

Working Patterns. London: Industrial Society, now The Work Foundation

Lewis, S. and Taylor, K. (1996) Evaluating the Impact of Family Friendly

Employer Policies: A Case Study in Lewis, S. and Lewis, J. (eds) The Work Family

Challenge: Rethinking Employment. London: Sage

Mooney, A., Statham, J. and Simon, A. (2002) The pivot generation: Informal

Care and work after 50. Bristol: The Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree

Foundation.www.jrf.org.uk


29/33

Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., and McMurrrian, R. (1996) Development and validation of

work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

77, pp. 400 - 410

Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2002) Social Trends 32.

www.statistics.gov.uk

Phillips, J., Bernard,M. and Chittenden,M. (2002) Juggling work and care:

The experiences of working careers of older adults. Bristol: The Policy Press

for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.www.jrf.org.uk

Purcell, K., Hogarth T. and Simm C. (1999) whos Flexibility? York: York

Publishing Service for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.www.jrf.org.uk

Scase, R. and Scales, J. (1998) Work now -pay later? The impact of long work

hours on health and family life. ESRC

Scottish Executive (2001) Scottish Economic Statistics 2001.

Scottish Executive.www.scotland.gov.uk

Thomas, L. and Ganster,D. (1995) Impact of Family-Supportive Work

Lewis, S., Smithson, J. and das Dores Guerreiro, M. (2002) Into parenthood: Young

peoples sense of entitlement to support for the reconciliation of employment and family life

in Brannen, J., Lewis, S., Nilsen, A. and Smithson, J. (eds) Young Europeans, Work and

Family: Futures in Transition. London: Routledge pp. 140 161

Lewis, S. and Taylor, K. (1996) Evaluating the Impact of Family Friendly Employer

Policies: A Case Study in Lewis, S. and Lewis, J. (ads) The Work Family Challenge:

Rethinking Employment. London: Sage

Mooney, A., Statham, J. and Simon, A. (2002) The pivot generation: Informalcare and work

after 50. Bristol: The Policy Press for the Joseph RowntreeFoundation.www.jrf.org.uk

Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., and McMurrrian, R. (1996) Development and validation of

work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.

77, pp. 400 410

Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2002) Social Trends www.statistics.gov.uk
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/


30/33

Phillips, J., Bernard, M. and Chittenden, M. (2002) Juggling work and care: The experiences

of working careers of older adults. Bristol: The Policy Press for the Joseph Row tree

Foundation.www.jrf.org.uk

Business Case Bevan, S., Dench, S., Tamkin, P. and Cummings, J. (1999) Family-friendly Employment:

The Business Case. DfEE Research Report RR136

DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) and Scotland Office (2001) The Essential Guide to -

Work-life Balance. London:DTI

Dalton, D.R. and Mesch D.J. (1990) the impact on flexible scheduling on employee

attendance and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.35, pp.270 387

Europe

Bielenski, H., Bosch G. and Wagner A. (2001) Employment and Working Time in

Europe. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working

Conditions.

Duncan, S. (2002) Policy Discourses on Reconciling Work and Life in the EU.

Social Policy and Society, Vol. 1 No.4, pp. 305 - 314

EFILWC (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working

Conditions) (2001) Working Conditions in Atypical Work. Dublin: European

Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

www.eurofound.ie/index.htm

EU (European Union) (2002) European Employment Strategy.

www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl&esf/ees_en.htm

Labor Market

Brannen J., Moss, P., Owen, C. and Wale, C. (1997) Mothers, Fathers and Employment:

Parents and the Labor Market 1984 - 1994. Sheffield: Department for Education and

Employment
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl&esf/ees_en.htmhttp://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl&esf/ees_en.htm


31/33

Burchell, B., Day, D., Hudson, M., Ladipo,D.,Mankelow, R., Nolan, J., Reed, H.,

Wichert I., and Wilkinson, F. (1999) Job insecurity and work intensification. York:York

Publishing Services for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.www.jrf.org.uk

Casey, B.,Metcalf H. and Millward, N. (1997) Employers Use of Flexible Labor.

London: Policy Studies Institute

CBI (Confederation of British Industry) (1997) Labor market flexibility: getting

beyond the slogans. London: CBI

CIPD (Chartered Institute Personnel and Development) (2001) Labor Turnover.

www.cipd.co.uk

Dex, S. (ed.) (1999) Families and the Labour Market. London: Family Policies

Studies Centre for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Epstein, Fuchs C., Seron, C.,Oglensky, B., and Saut, R. (1999) The Part Time

Paradox. New York: Routledge

Evans, J., Lippoldt,D.C. and Marianna, P. (2001) Trends in Working Hours in OECD

countries.OECD, Labor Market and Social Policy Papers, No. 45.www.oecd.org

Fagan, C. (2000) Actual and preferred working hours: the UK working paper.

www.eurofound.ie/index.htm

Lewis, S. (1996) Rethinking Employment: An Organizational Culture Change

Framework in Lewis, S. and Lewis, J. (Eds) the Work-Family Challenge: Rethinking

Employment. London: Sage

Taylor, R. (2002) Britains World of Work - Myths and Realities. ESRC Future of Work

Programme.www.esrc.ac.uk


32/33

Fathers

Crouter, A.C., Bumpus,M. F., Head,M. R. and McHale, S.M. (2001) Implications of

overwork and overload for the quality of mens family relationships Journal of Marriage

and the Family, Vol.63 No. 2, pp. 404 - 416

Hatten, W.Vinter, L. and Williams, R. (2002) Dads on Dads. Needs and expectations at

home and at work. EOC Research Discussion Series. www.eoc.org.uk

OBrien. And shemilt (2003) Working Fathers. Equal Opportunities Commission

Discussion Series. Manchester: EOC

Warin, J., Solomon,Y., Lewis, C. and Langford,W. (1999) Fathers,work and family life.

London: Family Policy Studies Centre for the JRF

Lone Parents

Backett-Milburn, K., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Kemmer,D. (2001) Caring

And Providing: lone partnered working mothers in Scotland. London: Family

Policy Studies Centre.www.jrf.org.uk

Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

Dex, S. and Scheibl, F. (2002) SMEs and flexible working arrangements.

Bristol: The Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.www.jrf.org.uk

Gender

Evans,O. and Steptoe, A. (2002) The contribution of gender-role orientation, work

factors and home stressors to psychological well-being and sickness absence in male- and

female-dominated occupational groups Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 54, pp. 481 -

492

Craig, L. (2002) The time cost of parent-hood: an analysis of daily workload Social

Policy Research Centre Discussion Paper No. 117. www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/dp/

Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher J., Pruitt, B. (2002) Beyond Work-Family Balance:

Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass


33/33

Sullivan,O. and Gershuny J. (2001) Cross-national changes in time-use: some

sociological (hi)stories re-examined, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp.

331 - 34741

Human Resources Policy Galinsky, E. and Stein, P. (1990) The Impact of Human Resource Policies on

Employees: Balancing Work/Family Life Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 11 No.4,

pp.368 - 383

Gennard, J. and Kelly, J. (1997) The unimportance of labels: the diffusion of the

personnel/ HRM function Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 27 - 42

Hutton Raabe, P. (1996) Constructing Pluralistic Work and Career Arrangement in

Lewis, S. and Lewis, J. (Eds) The Work-Family Challenge: Rethinking Employment.

London: Sage

Kossek, E. and Ozeki, C. (1998) Work-Family Conflict, Policies, and the Job Life

Satisfaction Relationship: A Review and Directions for Organizational Behavior-Human

Resources Research Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 139 - 149

Lewis, S. (1997) Family Friendly Employment Policies: A route to changing

Organizational Culture or playing a out at the Margins? Gender, Work and

Organization, Vol. 4 No.1, pp. 13 - 23

work life balance (autosaved).doc1

Documents