It is well known that Americans work long hours. Based on in-depth interviews with senior executives from Fortune 500 firms, one study noted, “The 60-hour weeks once thought to be the path to glory are now practically considered part-time. Spouses, kids, friends, prayer, sleep—time for things critical to human flourishing—is being squeezed by longer hours at the top.”[1] As one executive noted, “Vacations had become merely a change of work venue.”[2] Service firms in consulting, law, and investment banking have built 80-hour weeks into their businesses. Jeffrey Immelt, Chief Executive Officer of GE, boasts that he has worked 100 hours a week for 25 years. That’s 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week!
Interviews with Fortune 500 senior executives regarding their work lives and careers paint a different picture, however, for they show that old assumptions about how to work, how to show commitment, and how to advance are cruelly out of date. Here are just a few of the findings:[3]
Eight-four percent say they’d like job options that let them realize their professional aspirations while having more time for things outside of work.
Fifty-five percent say they’re willing to sacrifice income to have more time for things outside of work.
Half say they wonder if the sacrifices they made for their careers are worth it.
Seventy-three percent believe it is possible to restructure senior management jobs in ways that would both increase productivity and make more time available for life outside the office.
Eight-seven percent believe that companies that enable such changes will have a competitive advantage in attracting talent.
The younger a male executive is, the more likely he is to say he cares about all of this.
Men and women are far more alike in their desires than the debate over these issues has assumed.
Ninety-eight percent say they’re sympathetic to requests from those who report to them for a better work-life balance.
At the same time, as many as 70 percent of U. S. workers feel that have no balance between their work and nonwork lives.[4]
Working parents face a host of additional issues:[5]
About 70 percent of mothers with school-age children work for pay outside the home, with 55 percent of mothers with infants younger than one year old employed outside the home.
One in three children is born to a single mother; that group comprises seven million mothers in the United States who do not have a spouse to share the work of earning a livelihood and caring for children. Research generally shows that children raised without fathers are more likely to be raised in poverty and to have the negative outcomes associated with poverty (more crime, less school achievement) than children raised with supportive fathers.
More than 1.5 million single fathers are raising children without the financial or emotional support of a spouse. Considered another way, a father heads one in every five single-parent households.
Among married employees, 78 percent have spouses or partners who are also employed.
Working men born between 1965 and 1979 now spend about 3.5 hours per day with their kids—the same amount as working women. Moreover, 70 percent of men say they would take a pay cut to spend more time with their families, and almost half would turn down a promotion if it meant less family time.[6]
At the same time, there is pressure to maintain a two-income lifestyle. Few families can afford “luxuries” such as health insurance, mortgage payments, and grocery bills on one salary. Indeed, more American families file for bankruptcy every year than file for divorce.[7]
Can organizations enhance both employee productivity and their work and nonwork life balance? When do investments in work and nonwork life balance become a recruitment and retention advantage? Is the advantage actually enough to offset the costs? In short, can investments to enhance the balance between work and nonwork actually pay off, and how much? As in other chapters, our purpose here is to follow the LAMP model presented in Chapter 1, “Making HR Measurement Strategic,” to offer a logical and analytic and measurement framework regarding work-life programs that might facilitate better decisions about investments in them. We conclude the chapter by providing some practical suggestions about the process of communicating results to decision makers. Let us begin by addressing a simple question: Just what is a work-life program?
Although originally termed “work-family” programs, this book uses the term work-life programs to reflect a broader perspective of this issue. Work-life recognizes the fact that employees at every level in an organization, whether parents or nonparents, face personal or family issues that can affect their performance on the job. A work-life program includes any employer-sponsored benefit or working condition that helps an employee to balance work and nonwork demands. At a general level, such programs span five broad areas:[8]
Child and dependent-care benefits (for example, on-site or near-site child- or elder-care programs, summer and weekend programs for dependents)
Flexible working conditions (for example, flextime, job sharing, teleworking, part-time work, compressed work weeks)
Leave options (for example, maternity, paternity, adoption leaves, sabbaticals, phased re-entry, or retirement schemes)
Information services and HR policies (for example, cafeteria benefits, life-skill educational programs such as parenting skills, health issues, financial management, and retirement, exercise facilities, professional and personal counseling)
Organizational cultural issues (for example, an organizational culture that is supportive with respect to the nonwork issues of employees, coworkers, and supervisors who are sensitive to family issues)
As the chapter-opening statistics make clear, pressures for work-life balance stem from a variety of sources. Whether an organization chooses to address those needs or not to address them, each choice has consequences. Figure 7-1 is a logical framework to describe the conditions that affect the potential impact of work-life programs on behaviors and financial outcomes.
As Figure 7-1 shows, there are consequences, both behavioral and financial, to decisions to offer, or not to offer, one or more work-life programs. If an organization chooses not to offer such programs, there may be negative consequences with respect to job performance. Some of these potential impacts include heightened stress, more burnout, a higher likelihood of mistakes, and more refusals of promotions by employees already feeling the strain of pressures for balance between their work and nonwork lives.
Under these circumstances, job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, and engagement in one’s job (vigor, absorption, dedication, see Chapter 6, “Employee Attitudes and Engagement”) are likely to wane. When that happens, people begin to think about quitting, some actually do quit, and customer service may suffer. All of these consequences lead to significant financial outcomes, as Chapters 3 through 6 have demonstrated.
Assuming an organization does offer one or more work-life programs, the financial and nonfinancial effects of those programs depend on several factors. These include the range, scope, cost, and quality of the programs, support for the programs from managers and supervisors, and the extent and quality of communications about them to employees. If those conditions are met, it is reasonable to expect improvements in talent management (reductions in withdrawal behaviors and voluntary turnover, and improvements in the ability to attract top talent); human-capital outcomes (increased satisfaction, commitment, and motivation to perform well); and financial, operational, and business outcomes. Chapters 3 through 6 document some of the financial consequences associated with those outcomes. The following sections elaborate on the elements of Figure 7-1 in more detail.
Companies can own tangible assets, such as patents, copyrights, and equipment, but they cannot own their own employees.[9] Conflicts between job demands and the demands of nonwork life may lead some employees to a condition known as “burnout.” Employees suffering from burnout do the bare minimum, do not show up regularly, leave work early, and quit their jobs at higher rates than less-stressed employees.[10] To reduce such tensions they may leave the work force altogether, or move to positions in other organizations that generate less work-life stress. For firms that are trying to build valuable human assets that are difficult to copy or to lure way, work-life programs may provide powerful retention and performance-enhancement tools.
Other employee-withdrawal behaviors, such as reduced effort while at work, lateness, and absenteeism, also diminish the value of human resources to an employer.[11] As shown in Chapter 3, “The Hidden Costs of Absenteeism,” the number-one reason for unscheduled employee absenteeism is family-related issues (26 percent). The number three reason is personal needs (20 percent). Taken together, these causes account for almost half of all absenteeism incidents. It is precisely these underlying reasons for employee withdrawal that work-life programs are designed to address. Work-life initiatives that incorporate flexibility in work scheduling, together with “family-friendly” features, can play a potentially important role in protecting a firm’s investment in its human capital. This is especially true for professional employees.
The view of work-life programs as a strategy for protecting investments in human capital applies particularly well to professional employees. Professional employees are critical resources for organizations because of their expense, their relative scarcity, and the transferability of their skills.[12] In addition, professionals tend to be highly autonomous, posing problems of organizational control.
Attracting and retaining professionals is difficult because their skills are valued by other employers. Work-life programs can be effective for attracting and retaining these employees.[13] Americans in general are delaying the birth of their first child until they have achieved some measure of financial and career security. Given the relatively long years of education and training required of professionals, these people in particular are likely to delay starting their families.[14] For this reason, work-family tensions tend to rise for many professionals as they reach their 30s and 40s. If organizations fail to provide assistance in handling this tension, they risk losing these valuable employees to employers that offer more flexibility.
From a competitive standpoint, because work-life programs are more highly developed in some organizations than in others, organizations with extensive work-life benefits may be better able to retain top-performing professionals despite efforts by competitors to bid them away. Jefferson Wells International is a good example of such an organization.
Offering programs like Jefferson Wells might lead some parents, mostly women, to decide they don’t have to opt out of the work force temporarily when they have children.
Today, many companies recruit roughly equal numbers of female and male MBA graduates, but they find that a substantial percentage of their female recruits drop out within three to five years. The most vexing problem for businesses, therefore, is not finding female talent, but retaining it.[16]
How large is the opt-out phenomenon? A recent survey examined this phenomenon among 2,443 highly qualified women and a smaller comparison group of 653 highly qualified men—defined as those with a graduate degree, a professional degree, or a high-honors undergraduate degree.[17] Fully 37 percent of the women (43 percent of those with kids), as opposed to only 24 percent of the men (no statistical difference between those who are fathers and those who are not), took time off from their careers. Among women, the average break lasted 2.2 years (1.2 years for those in business), with 44 percent citing child- or elder-care responsibilities, compared with only 12 percent of men. Among men, who averaged one year off, the primary reason was career enhancement.
Although 93 percent of the women who took time off from work wanted to return, only 74 percent of them were able to do so. Even then, they paid a high price for their career interruptions, with the penalties becoming more severe the longer the break. Among women in business, the average loss in earnings was 28 percent, even though the average break among those women lasted little more than a year. When women spend three or more years out of the work force, they earn only 63 percent of the salaries of those who took no time out.
The same survey also found that many women cope with job-family trade-offs by working part time, by reducing the number of hours they work in full-time jobs, and by declining promotions. Women are less likely to opt out of work if their employers offer flexible career paths that allow them to ramp up and ramp down their professional responsibilities at different career points.[18] Flexibility is a key retention tool for women as well as for men.
Especially for those who do not or cannot opt out of working, family and personal concerns are a source of stress:[19]
In professional-service firms, well over half the employees can be expected to experience some kind of work-family stress in a three-month period.
Staff members with work-family conflict are three times more likely to consider quitting (43 percent versus 14 percent).
Staff members who believe that work is causing problems in their personal lives are much more likely to make mistakes at work (30 percent) than those who have few job-related personal problems (19 percent).
On the other hand, employees with supportive workplaces report greater job satisfaction and more commitment to helping their companies succeed.
Organizations want their employees to be highly committed and fully engaged, but in many cases, that is just wishful thinking because of the spillover effect from issues at work to employees’ personal lives off the job. Research has shown that more than one third of employees frequently experience negative spillover from the job to their personal lives.[20] Regardless of the direction of the spillover, from work to personal life or from personal life to work, a meta-analytic review found that both types of conflict are negatively related to job and life satisfaction.[21]
That spillover is reflected in high stress, bad moods, poor coping, and insufficient quality and amount of time for family and friends. When employees are worried about personal issues outside of work, they become distracted, and their commitment wanes, along with their productivity. Ultimately, both absenteeism and turnover (voluntary or involuntary) may increase. As we have noted, family/personal issues are widespread sources of stress, and conflicts between work and personal life affect productivity and general well-being. Organizational programs that support work-life balance are potential antidotes to these conditions; but, unfortunately, in many organizations, although the programs are available, there may be formidable barriers that make it difficult for employees to use them.[22]
The mere presence of a work-life initiative is no guarantee of success. As shown in Figure 7-1, one must also consider the range, scope, quality, and cost of work-life initiatives, along with the quality and care with which they are deployed. Key factors to consider are the careful alignment of the programs with the strategic objectives of the organization, the extent and quality of communications about the programs, and the extent of management and supervisory support for the programs. If implemented properly, work-life initiatives should reduce employee withdrawal behaviors, increase retention, and increase employees’ motivation to perform well. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.
A recent study used focus groups to investigate employees’ decisions to use or not to use work-life programs.[23] It revealed six major barriers to more widespread use of the programs:
Lack of communication about the policies (vague or limited knowledge about them)
High workloads (work builds up when employees take time off)
Management attitudes (to some managers, employees who take advantage of the policies show lack of commitment; others are unwilling to accommodate differing needs of employees)
Career repercussions (belief that if employees access work-life policies they “will not go places”)
The influence of peers (employee use of a work-life program might cause resentment or suggest that the employee is not a team player)
Administrative processes (excessive paperwork; long approval processes)
In short, it is not just the policies, but also the environment in which they are implemented that makes the biggest difference for employees.[24] Thus, a nationwide study by Canada’s Department of Labor found that 70 percent of employees surveyed attributed problems with their respective companies’ work-life programs to treatment by their immediate supervisors.[25] A follow-up study that included a list of 26 items related to work-life balance. Seven of the nine items that were most strongly related to the success of these programs were related to the attitudes and behaviors of supervisors. Indeed, study after study has reinforced the critical role that immediate supervisors play in the overall success of work-life programs.[26]
An organization that truly is committed to work-life policies does more than simply provide them. It also takes tangible steps to create a workplace culture that supports and encourages the use of the policies,[27] and it offers streamlined processes to approve employee access to them. As Figure 7-1 illustrates, those steps include things such as a multichannel communication strategy to promote and publicize the organization’s work-life policies (for example, company intranet, in-house newspaper, email), coupled with training for managers on how to support employees who take advantage of them. To break down barriers and to enhance decisions about where investments in work-life programs are likely to have the most significant strategic value, line managers need a logical framework (Figure 7-1) and research results. Although work-life initiatives are only one determinant of employee behaviors, along with factors such as pay, working conditions, and the work itself, research indicates that they can have substantial effects on employee decisions to stay with an organization and to produce high-quality work. Our next section focuses on analytics and measures that will make those results meaningful.
As we pointed out in earlier chapters, analytics refer to the research designs and statistical models that allow us to draw meaningful conclusions from studies that purport to show linkages between programs and outcomes. Measures refer to the actual data that populate those models and the formulas that accompany them. In the case of work-life programs, the measures include the investments in the programs, as well as measures of outcomes such as absence and turnover that are discussed in earlier chapters. The analytical challenges include ensuring that program effects are not confused with other factors (controlling for extraneous effects) and determining correlation and causation.
Several studies have examined the impact of childcare programs on absenteeism, turnover, and employee commitment. For example, a study at a major aerospace firm reported the following savings (expressed in terms of 2006 dollars) in the first year of operation of a childcare center:[28]
Reduced absences arising from childcare breakdowns: 5.28 days saved per employee, or $346,295.
Reduced tardiness resulting from childcare problems: 8.37 times late or left early per employee (x 2 hours), or $137,238.
Reduced work time spent looking for childcare: 7 hours per employee, or $18,360.
The total estimated net savings for this very large employer were $501,894 in the first year alone.
Chase Manhattan Bank (now JPMorgan Chase) analyzed the return on investment (ROI) of its backup childcare program (that is, childcare used in emergencies or when regular childcare is unavailable). It found that childcare breakdowns were the cause of 6,900 days of missed work by parents. Because backup childcare was available, these lost days were not incurred. When multiplied by the average daily salary of the employee in question (expressed in 2006 dollars), gross savings were $2,167,953. The annual cost of the backup childcare center was $1,024,784, for a net savings of $1,143,168, and an ROI of better than 110 percent.[29]
Finally, Canadian financial services giant CIBC recently bulked up its backup childcare program, rolling the on-site service out to 14 Canadian cities. Employees can take advantage of the program for up to 20 days a year at no cost to them. CIBC’s Children’s Care Center has saved more than 6,800 employee days since the first facility opened in 2002. The company estimates its cost savings over that period to be about $1.4 million. Equally as important, the program is a big winner with CIBC’s workers.[30]
When one stops to consider the effects of email, BlackBerries, cell phones, personal and family demands, and the 24/7 business environment, the inescapable conclusion for many employees is that 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. just isn’t working anymore. Time is employees’ most precious commodity. They want the flexibility to control their own time—where, when, and how they work. They want balance in their lives between work and leisure. Flexibility in schedules is important, as organizations strive to retain talented workers.[31] At the same time, the concept of “flexibility” reflects a broad spectrum of possible work arrangements, as Figure 7-2 makes clear.
Figure 7-2. Implementing flexibility: A spectrum of practice.
Earlier we noted some key barriers to wider implementation of work-life programs. Flexible work schedules are no exception. “Flexibility is frequently viewed by managers and employees as an exception or employee accommodation, rather than as a new and effective way of working to achieve business results. A face-time culture, excessive workload, manager skepticism, customer demands, and fear of negative career consequences are among the barriers that prevent employees from taking advantage of policies they might otherwise use—and that prevent companies from realizing the full benefits that flexibility might bestow.”[32]
To help inform the debate about flexible work arrangements, consider the financial and nonfinancial effects that have been reported for these key outcomes shown in Figure 7-1: talent management (specifically, better recruiting and lower turnover) and human-capital outcomes (increased satisfaction and commitment, decreased stress); which affect cost and performance, leading to financial, operational, and business outcomes. Here are some very brief findings in each of these areas from a recent study of 29 American firms.[33]
IBM’s 2004 global work-life survey demonstrated that, for IBM employees overall, flexibility is an important aspect of employees’ decision to stay with the company. Responses from almost 42,000 IBM employees in 79 countries revealed that work-life balance—of which flexibility is a significant component—is the second leading reason for potentially leaving IBM, behind compensation and benefits. Conversely, employees with higher work-life balance scores (and therefore also higher flexibility scores) reported significantly greater job satisfaction and were much more likely to agree with the statement “I would not leave IBM.”
In the Corporate Finance organization, 94 percent of all managers reported positive impacts of flexible work options on the company’s “ability to retain talented professionals.” In light of these findings showing the strong link between flexibility and retention, IBM actively promotes flexibility as a strategy for retaining key talent.
At Deloitte & Touche, one employee-survey item asked whether employees agreed with the statement “My manager grants me enough flexibility to meet my personal/family responsibilities.” Those who agreed that they have access to flexibility scored 32 percent higher in commitment than those who believed they did not have access to flexibility. Likewise, AstraZeneca found that commitment scores were 28 percent higher for employees who said they had the flexibility they needed, compared to employees who did not have the flexibility they needed.
Concern for quality and continuity of client or customer service is often one of the concerns raised about whether flexibility can work in a customer-focused organization. To be sure that compressed workweeks did not erode traditionally high levels of customer service, the Consumer Healthcare division of GlaxoSmithKline surveyed customers as part of the evaluation of its flexibility pilot program. Fully 89 percent of customers said they had not seen any disruption in service, 98 percent said their inquiries had been answered in a timely manner, and 87 percent said they would not have any issues with the program becoming a permanent work schedule.
Studies such as these make it possible to reframe the discussion and to position flexibility not as a “perk,” employee-friendly benefit, or advocacy cause, but as a powerful business tool that can enhance talent management, improve important human capital outcomes, and boost financial and operational performance.[34]
A large-scale, empirical study of data from a series of surveys administered by the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, from 1996 to 2003, investigated the indirect impact of work-life practices through employee turnover and the direct impact of work-life practices on firm performance.[35] The researchers defined firm performance in three ways: financial (return on assets [ROA]), employee productivity (logarithm of sales per employee), and investor return (one-year compounded stock-price return). What is unique about this study, relative to prior research, is that most prior research has examined the effects of work-life programs on employee turnover within a single firm. Data on employee turnover across a large sample of firms, in this study, 2,570 firms, is not easily available, and therefore has not been examined.
Employee benefits in Singapore firms fall into two main categories: work-life benefits and resource benefits. Work-life benefits refer to benefits that allow employees to adjust their work hours or work location to accommodate their personal and family demands, such as various leave benefits and flexible working arrangements. Resource benefits refer to financial and other resources that firms give to employees either as a form of welfare benefit or as performance incentives, such as transportation benefits and stock options.
The researchers analyzed data separately for management and nonmanagement employees. In addition, they examined four variables to indicate the extensiveness of work-life benefits in a firm:
Number of work-life benefits (controlling for number of resource benefits)
Annual leave entitlement
Workweek pattern (compressed versus standard)
Availability of part-time employment
Figure 7-3 presents the design of the study.
Figure 7-3. Relationships between work-life variables, employee turnover, and firm performance.
As Figure 7-3 shows, the design of the study allowed the researchers to investigate the indirect impact of work-life practices through employee turnover and the direct impact of work-life practices on firm performance. They controlled for the size of the firm, ownership (publicly listed or private), industry (manufacturing or service), degree of industry concentration, and year (where multiple years of data were used). For stock return, they also controlled for the age of the firm and the systematic risk of the firm’s stock (beta).
Figure 7-4 shows a typical result of the analysis.
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Figure 7-4. Relationships between number of work-life benefits and number of resource benefits for management, management voluntary turnover, and ROA.
Based on 1,178 observations from Year 2003, and controlling for the number of resource benefits, firms that offer more work-life benefits for management employees have lower management voluntary turnover (standardized regression coefficient = – 0.06). In turn, firms with lower management voluntary turnover generate higher ROA (standardized regression coefficient = – 2.15). Hence, the indirect effect of the number of work-life benefits for management on ROA through turnover is positive (– 0.06 times – 2.15).
However, there is also a direct negative relationship between the number of work-life benefits for management and return on assets (standardized regression coefficient = – 0.14), suggesting that implementing work-life benefits for management is financially costly for firms.
The results of this study indicate that voluntary turnover among managers as well as rank-and-file employees negatively affects firm financial performance, employee productivity, and investor return. Conversely, implementing work-life initiatives for both management and rank-and-file employees can be an effective business strategy for firms to reduce voluntary employee turnover. While the effects of reduced turnover do not quite offset the direct financial costs, reduced turnover is only one effect of work-life programs. The study found lower voluntary employee turnover in
Firms that offer a larger number of work-life benefits to their employees
Firms that have a higher proportion of employees with more generous annual leave entitlements
Firms that have a higher proportion of employees on shorter workweeks
After reading these results, you may well be wondering what causes what. That is, do work-life programs drive reductions in employee turnover, or do firms with low turnover rates find it viable to invest in work-life programs? Fortunately, the results of a recent large-scale, longitudinal study have begun to shed light on this important issue.[36] Using data from 885 private-sector businesses in multiple industries over 5 years, researchers found multidirectional (reciprocal) relationships between firm performance (ROA) and both voluntary and involuntary turnover. That means that turnover was higher in poorer-performing firms, and that this was due both to poor firm performance causing employees to leave, and due to high employee turnover causing poorer firm performance. Further, employee benefits moderated the negative relationships between firm performance and both voluntary and involuntary turnover. That means that employees in firms that offered a larger number of employee benefits were less likely to leave voluntarily when firm performance was poor. Correspondingly, firms that offered a larger number of employee benefits were less likely to respond to poor firm performance by terminating employees involuntarily.
What are the practical implications of these findings? Anticipate a possible spike in voluntary turnover when a firm performs poorly, but recognize that work-life benefits may offset that trend.
To address this question, researchers used data from 1995 to 2002 to compare the financial and stock market performance of the “100 Best” companies for working mothers, as published each year by Working Mother magazine, to that of benchmark indexes of the performance of U.S. equities, the Standard & Poor’s 500, and the Russell 3000.[37] In terms of financial performance, expressed as revenue productivity (sales per employee) and asset productivity (ROA), the study found no evidence that Working Mother “100 Best” companies were consistently more profitable or consistently more productive than their counterparts in S&P 500 companies.
At the same time, however, the total returns on common stock among Working Mother “100 Best” companies consistently outperformed the broader market benchmarks in each of the eight years of the study. Figure 7-5 shows these results.
Figure 7-5. Indexed one-year stock return: 1995–2002.
Consider a “buy-and-hold” strategy, based on a portfolio of the “100 Best” companies in 1995. By the end of 2002, the publicly traded companies in that list had achieved total returns on common stock that were 120 percentage points higher than the S&P 500 and the Russell 3000. If instead an investor had rebalanced the portfolio each year that a new “Best 100” list was published, he or she still would have achieved returns that were 35 percentage points higher than the average of the S&P 500 and the Russell 3000.
In short, higher investor returns are produced by companies on the list, but apparently not simply because Working Mother “100 Best” companies consistently achieve higher returns on assets or because their employees consistently generate more revenue than their counterparts in other companies. The researchers found no evidence to indicate that “100-Best” companies are handicapped in the marketplace by offering generous work-life benefits, but it may be the case that companies with superior stock returns have a lower cost of capital and therefore can afford to invest in such benefits. The results reflect associations, not causation, between firms that adopt family-friendly work practices and financial and stock market outcomes. Nonetheless, the results suggest the possibility that at least some of the association is due to the effects of family-friendly investments on market outcomes.
In this chapter, you have read facts and interview results that describe work-life imbalance/balance. You have also seen data that reflect both financial and nonfinancial effects of work-life programs. In this final section, we present some guidelines to help you inform decision makers in a systematic way about the costs and benefits of such programs. Let’s begin with a general query: What does it all mean?
If the findings described at the beginning of this chapter generalize widely, it is clear that senior executive (as well as lower-level) men and women want a “new deal” at work. To advance this agenda, here are four things that leaders need to do:[38]
Stop defining the desire for “doable” jobs as a women’s issue. Men want this, too.
Start viewing efforts to humanize jobs as a competitive advantage and business necessity, not as one-time accommodations for favored employees or executives.
Realize that progress is actually possible; and that there are many examples to show that work at all levels can be retooled.
Make it safe within your organization to talk about these things. As Xerox CEO Anne Mulcahy noted wryly, “Businesses need to be 24/7; individuals don’t.”[39]
Recognize also that there are at least three important cautions when considering investments in work-life programs. One, no one set of facts and figures will apply to all firms. It depends on the unique strategic priorities of each organization. Figure 7-1 provides a diagnostic logic for conversations about this. One might start by discussing whether the organization’s likely payoff will be primarily through talent management, human-capital outcomes (improved employee satisfaction, commitment, and engagement), business operations, or the costs of alternative programs. Start by finding out what your organization and its employees care about right now, what the work force is going to look like in three to five years, and therefore, what they are going to need to care about in the future.[40]
Two, don’t rely on isolated facts. By itself, any single study or fact is only one piece of the total picture. Think in terms of a multipronged approach:
External data that describes trends in your organization’s own industry
Internal data that outlines what employees want and how they describe their needs[41]
Internal data, perhaps based on pilot studies, that examines the financial and nonfinancial effects of work-life programs
Be sure to communicate the high costs of employee absenteeism and turnover to employers (see Chapters 3 and 4). For example, because most costs associated with employee turnover are hidden (separation, replacement, and training costs), many firms do not track them. With these costs identified, communicate the benefits of work-life initiatives in reducing them.
Include stories from your own workers that describe how work-life programs have helped them. Have quotes from people whom senior leaders know and care about. In other words, use a combination of quantitative and qualitative data to make your case.
Three, understand that decision makers may well be skeptical even after all the facts and costs have been presented to them. Perhaps more deeply rooted attitudes and beliefs may underlie the skepticism—such as a belief that allowing employees to attend to personal concerns through time off may erode service to clients or customers, or that people will take unfair advantage of the benefits, or that work-life issues are just women’s issues. To inform the debate, HR leaders need to address attitudes and values as well as data on costs and benefits of work-life programs.[42] Ultimately it is a system of work-life programs, a subsystem of broader HR programs and policies, coupled with an organizational culture that supports those systems, that helps an organization create and sustain competitive advantage through its people.
| 1. | Miller, J., & Miller, M. (Nov. 28, 2005). Get a life! Fortune, p. 110. |
| 2. | Ibid., p. 110. |
| 3. | Ibid., p. 109-124. |
| 4. | Murphy, S. E., & Zagorski, D. A. (2005). Enhancing work-family and work-life interaction: The role of management. In D. F. Halpern & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), From Work-Family Balance to Work-Family Interaction: Changing the Metaphor (p. 27-47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| 5. | Halpern, D. F. (Chair). (2005). Public policy, work, and families: Report of the APA presidential initiative on work and families. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. Halpern, D. F. & Murphy, S. E. (2005). From Work-Family Balance to Work-Family Interaction: Changing the Metaphor. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| 6. | Brady, D. (Nov. 8, 2004). Hopping aboard the daddy track. Business Week, p. 100-101. |
| 7. | Warren, E., & Tyagi, A. W. (2003). The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke. New York: Basic Books. |
| 8. | Sammer, J. (June 2004). Generating value through work/life programs. Retrieved from www.shrm.org on February 26, 2007. Bardoel, E. A., Tharenou, P., & Moss, S. A. (1998). Organizational predictors of work-family practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 36(3), 31-49. |
| 9. | Fueling the talent engine: Finding and keeping high performers. A case study of Yahoo! (DVD). (2005). Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management Foundation. Coff, R. W. (1997). Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Academy of Management Review, 22, 374-403. |
| 10. | Maslach, C. (2005). Understanding burnout: Work and family issues. In D. F. Halpern & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), From Work-Family Balance to Work-Family Interaction: Changing the Metaphor (p. 99-114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| 11. | Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (1998). The performance effect of work-family programs. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Academy of Management, San Diego, August 1998. |
| 12. | Ibid. |
| 13. | Byrnes, N. (October 10, 2005). Treating part-timers like royalty. Business Week, p. 78. |
| 14. | Konrad & Mangel, op. cit. |
| 15. | Byrnes, 2005, op. cit. |
| 16. | Tyson, L. D. (March 28, 2005). What Larry Summers got right. Business Week, p. 24. |
| 17. | Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B. (March 2005). Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping talented women on the road to success. Harvard Business Review, p. 43-54. |
| 18. | See also Brady, 2004, op. cit. |
| 19. | Johnson, A. A. (1999). Strategic meal planning: Work/life initiatives for building strong organizations. Paper presented at the conference on Integrated Health, Disability, and Work/Life Initiatives. New York, February 25. |
| 20. | Ibid. See also Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. E. (1998). The 1997 national study of the changing work force. NY: Families and Work Institute. |
| 21. | Kossek, E. E., & 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, 83, 139-149. |
| 22. | De Cieri, H., Holmes, B., Abbott, J. & Pettit, T. (2005). Achievements and challenges for work/life balance strategies in Australian organizations. International Journal of Human /Resource Management, 16(1), 90-103. |
| 23. | Waters, M. A., & Bardoel, E. A. (2006). Work-family policies in the context of higher education: Useful or symbolic? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 67-82. |
| 24. | Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. S. (2002). Employees’ use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80(3), 813-845. |
| 25. | Canadian Department of Labor (2003). Voices of Canadians: Seeking work-life balance. Retrieved from www.hrsdc.gc.ca on August 4, 2006. |
| 26. | Murphy & Zagorski, 2005, op. cit. See also Zagorski, D. A. (2004). Balancing the scales: The role of justice and organizational culture in employees’ search for work-life equilibrium. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University. |
| 27. | Waters & Bardoel, 2006, op. cit. Hewlett & Luce, 2005, op. cit. |
| 28. | Bright Horizons Family Solutions. (1997). An ROI study of back-up child care at Chase Manhattan Bank. Port Washington, NY: Bright Horizons Family Solutions. |
| 29. | Ibid. |
| 30. | O’Connell, B. (May 2005). No baby sitter? Emergency child care to the rescue. Compensation & Benefits Forum. Retrieved from www.shrm.org on August 3, 2006. |
| 31. | Shellenbarger, S. (Feb. 13, 2003). If you’d rather work in pajamas, here are ways to talk the boss into flex-time. The Wall Street Journal, p. D1. Conlin, M., Merritt, J. & Himelstein, L. (Nov. 25, 2002). Mommy is really home from work. Business Week, p. 101-104. |
| 32. | Corporate Voices for Working Families. (November 2005). Business impacts of flexibility: An imperative for expansion (p. 5). Retrieved from www.cvwf.org on May 18, 2006. |
| 33. | Ibid. |
| 34. | Ibid. |
| 35. | Kelly, K., & Ang, S. (October 2005). A study on the relationships between work-life practices and firm performance in Singapore firms. Technical report, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. |
| 36. | Kelly, K., Ang, S., Yeo, G. H. H., & Cascio, W. F. (2007). Employee turnover and firm performance: Modeling reciprocal effects. Manuscript under review. |
| 37. | Cascio, W. F., & Young, C. (2005). Work-family balance: Does the market reward firms that respect it? In D. F. Halpern & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), From Work-Family Balance to Work-Family Interaction: Changing the Metaphor (p. 49-63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. |
| 38. | Miller & Miller, 2005, op. cit. |
| 39. | Ibid., p. 110. |
| 40. | Pires, P. S. (2005). Sitting at the corporate table: How work-family policies are really made. In D. F. Halpern & S. E. Murphy (Eds.), From Work-Family Balance to Work-Family Interaction: Changing the Metaphor (p. 71-81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| 41. | Caminiti, S. (Sept. 20, 2004). Reinventing the workplace. Fortune, p. S12-S15. |
| 42. | Johnson, A. A. (August 1995). The business case for work-family programs. Journal of Accountancy, 53-57. |