FRAMINGHAM (08/15/2000) - Anyone who has ever taken a laptop to his or her child's soccer game knows there are times when job and family obligations crash head-on. For 30 years, workers and employers have struggled over how--and whether--careers can coexist with children.
For their new book, Work and Family: Allies or Enemies? (Oxford University Press, 2000), authors Stewart D. Friedman and Jeffrey H. Greenhaus surveyed more than 800 professionals about how their dual roles affected their careers and family lives. They found that men and women who gave work and family equal priority felt most successful at each, but only if they had support from both their employers and their partners at home.
The authors suggest ways that companies, family members and society as a whole can make it easier for employees to have lives outside of work, without sacrificing productivity as many employers fear. "All of us can live happier and more balanced lives when each part of life benefits from the other--when enough flexibility, information, acceptance and self-esteem are derived from work and family to help us become involved, competent and happy in other parts of our lives."
We are convinced that work-family integration affords people a greater opportunity to achieve personal goals and lead more satisfying lives. It can promote career success and more satisfying relationships at home. It's a common observation that reductions in role conflict reduce stress for nearly everyone--single men and women, as well as parents in the workforce. All of us can have more satisfying personal lives when work is our ally.
[Work-family integration] is a business concern with bottom-line implications.
In a global economy, with heightened competition, American employers perhaps more than ever need the advantage of committed employees. That advantage can give the employer an edge in dealing with some of the features of the new economic landscape.
As business professionals increasingly come to expect flexibility [in the workplace], they're sure to seek out those employers who offer it. Employers who fail will experience greater unwanted turnover. Parents, especially, are looking for flexible employers. As one researcher puts it, flexibility "is the major enabler for working parents to participate successfully in the labor force."
There are other benefits. Businesses should view creating a flexible environment for employees as an investment. In this case, the investment can enhance a company's image among current and future employees, not to mention customers, and improve the quality of the workforce now and in the future.
Employees will not only give a greater personal commitment to employers who demonstrate a willingness to be flexible, they're likely to find ways to work smarter too.
We believe that making allies of work and family requires that choice be available and supported. We also believe that this integration can be achieved only if individuals, employers and society are committed to seeing that happen.
In her book, A Mother's Place: Taking the Debate About Working Mothers Beyond Guilt and Blame (HarperCollins, 1998), Susan Chira puts the importance of choices in perspective. While her book is about mothers, the ideas behind what she says can be applied to all working people--not to mention employers and society as a whole.
Chira argues, as do we, that there needs to be a broader range of discretion available for people. We believe this freedom of choice must be available to all individuals: freedom to establish priorities and find the right mix of commitments to different life domains. It implies that part of clarifying what's important, for those who value harmony between work and family, is to choose an occupation, employer or industry that is supportive of integration.
And it implies further that any activity that helps us find supportive organizations is a good thing, be it counseling, mentoring, talking to friends and so on.
Work creates assets for personal life and vice versa, although sometimes they're different for women and men. Those assets can affect integration between work and family and make the two domains mutually enriching.
Individuals and families should seek new and creative ways to make this integration a reality. Employers should strive to create work environments that promote integration by respecting the whole person and allowing for flexibility. Society, too, has a stake in enhancing opportunities for work-family integration.
The key to making each domain an ally of the other is to utilize partner support and support from coworkers and managers. Integration can't happen on its own; each of us needs some help from people who care about us.
Employers ought to build the concept of partner and coworker support into formal career development programs, as well as into mentoring initiatives. One way is to help employees focus on their individual life role priorities and the role of social support in achieving integration of work and personal life.
Managers should view their employees' lives beyond work as potential business assets and look for ways to invest in what people do when they're not on the job.
We know of a great example of how such an investment can pay off. One company turned the intense dedication of one of its sales reps to her alma mater into a win-win situation for employer and employee. It seems the sales rep spent much of her free time actively fund-raising for the school and recruiting local high school students. With her permission, her manager worked things out so that she could be assigned as the company's liaison to the school in its recruiting efforts there. In the end, the employer benefited by recognizing and supporting the whole person in that employee. The employee benefited as well. Recruitment efforts improved substantially in the hands of this booster for the school and company, and the employee was more committed than ever to her employer.
Create Work Environments That Value Employees as Whole People Companies need to get away from the notion that people who are serious about their families are not serious about their careers. Charles Romeo, the director of employee benefits at ConAgra, puts it well: "When we make our employees choose between work and family, we lose every time." The Johnson & Johnson credo gets it right: "We must be mindful of ways to help our employees fulfill their family obligations."
Family-friendly employers make a tremendous contribution in the struggle to make allies of work and family. Those of us--men and women--who feel that our employers support our lives beyond work experience less conflict and more opportunities for integration between work and family. Family-supportive organizations create greater employee commitment and career satisfaction, and everyone wins.
Companies should take an activist approach to this recommendation. Supervisory personnel need training if they are to become business leaders capable of capitalizing on the skills people develop outside work. They need to be supportive supervisors who know the company's work-family policies, apply those policies fairly, and believe work-family programs and policies are a legitimate part of the workplace and a means of creating long-term value for the company.
Organizations should train managers in the principles and skills that will help them see that redesign of work processes--experimenting with how goals are achieved--is an opportunity to enhance business results and the personal lives of employees. As these employers set on the road to developing this kind of family-friendliness, they need to ask how work gets done and what about that makes it difficult (or easy) for employees to juggle work and personal life so that neither suffers. These questions must be raised in a safe environment where employees who might acknowledge their difficulties balancing involvement in the two domains aren't concerned that they'll be "branded as less committed or undependable."
Training of the sort we're recommending can help dispel two distortions managers may promulgate. One is that if the boss doesn't have a life, neither should workers. This is a costly error for employers. The other is that paying one's dues--through face time, for example--equals results. It doesn't.
That last point is especially important because employers have a tendency to measure employees according to how much time they are visibly on the job. Women and men do spend less time at work and more with kids when they work for family-friendly employers. At first blush, it would seem that we're confirming the greatest fears hard-nosed business people have about introducing personal life considerations into the workplace. But we find that workers in family-friendly organizations perform just as well as those in nonsupportive organizations. And they perform as well in less time--they've experimented with how goals are achieved, and now they're working smarter. And they bring greater commitment to the workplace. For forward-thinking CEOs then, there should be little doubt about which is the better choice.
IBM has the right idea. Lou Gerstner, the company's CEO, explains why IBM Corp. has become one of the leading employers committed to work-family integration:
"I don't want IBMers worried about who's watching their children. I don't want them worried whether they'll be able to leave early to attend their child's first recital or take elderly parents to the doctor." That's from an IBM booklet called "We the people @ IBM."
The booklet is filled with great examples of the many initiatives IBM is supporting that are aimed at fostering integration of work and personal life.
There are a growing number of concrete examples of family-friendliness steps taken by employers, big and small. When Mobil Oil was losing more and more employees who didn't want to relocate, the company implemented placement assistance for spouses and created career development programs at hub locations to minimize geographical relocations. Merck, the pharmaceutical company, is an innovator in work-life initiatives. Early on, the company responded to growing work-family conflict by expanding child-care assistance, flexible work hours and parental leave policies. The company inaugurated lunchtime seminars on family matters and introduced training programs to encourage manager sensitivity to family concerns and awareness of accommodations they can make.
It has continued to lead with initiatives in work redesign and a full range of options for flexibility.
The time bind is real, no doubt, but a more subtle and pervasive problem is the psychological interference of work with family and of family with work. This makes it critical that we acquire the skills to manage the boundaries between these two spheres of life.
One way to manage boundaries effectively, to protect them and thus reduce conflict, is to make them less permeable. Work and family roles require different frames of mind for most of us. Managing the boundaries means leaving the work frame at work--and in turn being more psychologically available to our families. It also means learning to be mentally agile, with the ability to move quickly from one frame of mind to the other, particularly for those who work at home. Parents, especially mothers, seem to acquire this skill particularly well. If we don't learn this skill, the family is the likely victim.
In her landmark study, Ask the Children: What America's Children Really Think About Working Parents (William Morrow and Co., 1999), Ellen Galinsky found that managing boundaries is important for our children. "Kids said they wanted their parents to come home from work not so wired. They wanted their parents to really be with them when they're at home instead of being there physically but thinking about work."
What to do? One relatively easy step is to create a schedule (one that allows for adjustments) with actual time off from electronic and other contact with work. Add personal life commitments to our calendars, just as we would write down a professional commitment. If we indeed consider those commitments to be of value, we need to give them space in our schedules.
Companies should encourage their managers to respect the fact that employees have lives beyond work--and to respect the boundaries those employees set. When employees feel they are respected as whole people and can take care of their families and other personal life interests when they need to, they're less likely to be distracted at work. In turn, they can make a more focused and productive work effort--not to mention their higher commitment to work and greater career satisfaction. It's all part of recognizing and supporting the whole person.
At Xerox Corp., a project team was regularly working long hours but still missed a lot of deadlines. And if someone on the team finished early, it was assumed he or she had not been given enough work to do. Managers were constantly interrupting the engineers. To deal with this problem of boundary permeability, the company set up "library hours"--interruption-free hours in the middle of the day. Soon, the team was meeting deadlines on a regular basis, without having to put in extra hours.
In the administrative department of Amerco, teams worked together to schedule their hours to meet individual needs. The company learned that "team governance can increase efficiency and worker morale.... Workers can organize both their work lives and their home lives with an eye to efficiency, and that they can do so without the intervention of a boss." When ESI, a computer company in Oregon, was going to lay off part of its workforce, it allowed its employees to take a vote. The workers chose instead to reduce their hours at reduced pay. There was no decline in productivity, and after the crisis ended, the workers voted to continue with the policy of a four-day, 32-hour week.
Authority over work--control over when, where, how and with whom work gets done--has a major impact on both career outcomes and satisfaction with life beyond work. An essential component of an infrastructure for flexibility is greater control over work by the people who do it.
Companies should give employees the opportunity to take responsibility for their work as competent adults with the capacity to choose and improve on the ways they get work done within the context of their lifestyles. Employees so empowered become entrepreneurial and constantly seek new ways to make a positive business contribution to their employers.
We have seen the start of a shift by employers toward greater recognition of the work-home boundary and the need for flexibility and authority. First Chicago Bank, for example, requires managers to submit written plans for expanding job flexibility.
Five years ago, we would never have seen recruitment materials for new MBAs that spoke of how you can "have a life" at some large investment bank. Today, however, most banks and consulting companies that recruit at business schools place at least some emphasis on work-family issues--although it's still more rhetoric than reality. It's our impression that most students don't believe this rhetoric: Still, the shift by companies is a sign of changing times.
Employers are realizing that to attract and retain the best and the brightest, they will have to adjust to create more options and more flexibility for how, when, where and with whom work gets done. We hope this new rhetoric will turn into new reality--sooner rather than later.
Radcliffe College's Public Policy Institute is involved in a well-publicized initiative to improve both work and life outcomes. Working with Fleet Financial Group, one of the nation's largest bank holding companies, the institute conducted a study that focused as much on business outcomes as on employee well-being. Changes in work design were implemented, geared toward providing workers with greater flexibility and authority on the job, in collaboration with all key parties. The result: real productivity gains and less stress and a greater sense of control for employees. Turnover rates for employees who participated in the study were lower than were those for employees who did not participate.
Parents' work experiences and career values influence children's health and welfare in significant ways. Corporate responsibility to kids and parents then must go beyond providing child-care facilities and benefits. Work needs to be designed so that parents can be available--behaviorally and psychologically--to their children.
While there's still lots to be done, some companies are blazing a new trail. As one among an increasingly wide array of examples, John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. offers pretax spending accounts for child care and elder care and "a benefit which allows employees to call home to check on family members (latch-key children)...for those who don't normally have access to a work phone." The company also offers "Kids to Go"--a program of child care during school holidays for school-age kids--under contract with a local nonprofit agency.
A word of warning: recent initiatives by companies to support employees with families have left some employees without children feeling like second-class citizens. They complain they're expected to work later, travel more, and forfeit weekends and holidays. They feel they're less likely to be granted flexible work schedules, have to justify leaving early, get transferred more often and pay health benefits that are less subsidized than those of coworkers with families. But, notes Michele Picard, in a 1997 Training article, "No Kids?
Get Back to Work!" they're reluctant to speak out, lest they be seen as antifamily.
Family supports that are essentially subsidized by employees without kids can cause resentment, as can preference to parents when approving leave or flex requests. It creates a sense that pay is not equitable. There are fixes, however. At Hewlett-Packard, for example, everyone gets the same amount of time off, regardless of circumstance. The company has adopted "a need-blind work time standard." And Eastman Kodak has domestic partner policies that extend benefits to committed partners of either sex living in the same household.
We're encouraged by recent studies showing how young people see their futures--with changing values and expectations for men and women.
The Swedish organization Universum conducts an annual survey of MBA students from around the world, asking about career goals and other issues. When asked to choose three from among 16 alternatives in response to the question, "Which career goals do you hope to attain once you have your MBA?" the top response was "balance personal life and career"--chosen by 44 percent of the sample in 1998.
The implication is clear: Integrating work and family matters to tomorrow's business leaders.
Stewart D. Friedman is a professor of management at The Wharton School. Jeffrey H. Greenhaus is a professor of management, commerce and engineering at Drexel University. Published by arrangement with Oxford University Press, New York City.
Work and Family: Allies or Enemies?
By Stewart D. Friedman and Jeffrey H. Greenhaus Oxford University Press, 2000 US$30 Terms of Employment Six ways company work policies can support families Family-friendly companies should establish policies that govern the conditions of what might be called the "contract" between employee and employer. Many companies have implemented policies such as those in the following list:
Travel policies that avoid last-minute trips so that families can plan ahead for the absence of either parent. Use of technology--such as videoconferencing--to avoid travel Sick-leave policies that allow either parent to care for children home from school or child care Paid parental leave for both mothers and fathers (and encouragement to fathers so that they use the benefit) Policies that avoid "macho meetings" at 7 a.m. or on the weekends and that concede that it's poor management if everyone must stay in the office until midnight Family-friendly relocation policies that first question whether relocation is really necessary, offer job relocation assistance for spouses and guarantee that employees who are reluctant to move don't lose their prospects for future promotion.