Yesterday, Kris Dunn posted an article on HR Capitalist about work/life balance.
The gist: HR isn’t responsible for it.
The truth: Employees are responsible for their own work/life balance, and if they want more money, promotions and fame, they’re going to have to work harder than those around them.
I agree, but I don’t think work/life balance is about working less.
To me, work/life balance is the ability to do great work and get all of your other priorities accomplished, too. That means giving people the freedom to choose when and where to do their work so they can best balance every aspect of their life.
Sometimes you need to be in the office to get something done (I’d argue that’s really the case far less than managers would like to believe). Sometimes it doesn’t matter.
Sometimes all you need is an internet connection and a laptop or cell phone. Sometimes those aren’t options – when you’re at the dentist, for example – and you work at night.
The point is, people are working. Work/life balance isn’t about doing less work. It’s about having the freedom to choose when and where.
That’s something HR can influence.
(So what do you think, am I way off-base here? Are the number of hours worked part of work/life balance, too?)
Click here to read Kris’s full article
Chris,
It’s not that I disagree with your assessment of work/life balance, but I think it’s somewhat of a narrow view of a situation that is very complex. It’s easy to say – let people work when and where they want – as long as they get their job done – who cares. If it takes 20 hrs per week or 60 hrs per week, we just want the job done. If they do it at 5am or 9pm, who cares? Right!
It’s just not that easy – those who care are co-workers who rely on peers for certain information or colaboration, customers/clients who need someone at a certain time. Something does get lost, when you allow so much freedom and flexibilty to your workforce, that you don’t know who is coming and going, and exactly when things are getting done. While this isn’t every occupation – I would argue that it’s more the norm, than not.
God bless those who are in jobs where they can have this freedom and flexibilty – but it’s not reality for most. Most business models are not a do it when and where you want – they are reactionary to your customer base – and the customer will chose when and where. The key to balance is to find those who’s balance fits that of those you serve.
hey chris,
i think HR can and should influence recognition for sometimes competing work and life issues and how not allowing for flexibility affects productivity, retention + attraction, and other important people issues
i like the “new” work/life fit label that’s becoming more prevalent. it emphasizes the truth: there is no balance — what kris was saying. instead, it underscores the need for a fit between individual and organization in order for both to both prosper and achieve their best.
in my book, it’s not enough to simply say that people can and should be able to work wherever, whenever. first, that’s just impossible for some jobs. second, it’s not tackling the whole issue. people may be able to go gangbusters at work for a while — again, kris’ point — and that’s awesome. then they may hit a period of time in their life where they need to reel it back. kids arrive, mom gets ill, something else tips the scales toward life.
if companies aren’t able to ebb & flow with an individual, they’ll lose that individual. they’ll either lose them physically, because the person leaves to find a company that will work with them, or because the person dips in productivity and engagement. neither’s desirable.
when a company sees the long-term advantage of recognizing individual needs and seeking to address them as best they can, then we’ll have work/life fit.
f
@Tim – I agree!
Not every role lends itself to that kind of freedom. And not every flexible work arrangement is an all-or-nothing deal. I do think, though, that managers and organizations are far more restrictive on this than they actually need to be.
It’s just not that easy – those who care are co-workers who rely on peers for certain information or colaboration, customers/clients who need someone at a certain time.
Isn’t that what email, cell phones and blackberries are for? I would argue that coworker needs are an integral part of “getting the work done.” Sometimes you do need to be in the office. Often times, you don’t.
Of course, if you’re a firefighter or nurse or one of countless other positions that really are time and location specific, well… that’s part of the career choice you made. But generally, I think organizations, and in particular HR pros, need to push for more flexibility for their workers.
I’m curious about this statement (I think I may agree with you – I’ve talked about this with the ROWE people a few times – but I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying correctly): Something does get lost, when you allow so much freedom and flexibilty to your workforce, that you don’t know who is coming and going, and exactly when things are getting done.
Can you elaborate on that, Tim?
Thanks!
Chris
@Fran – I agree to a point, but I think that a lot of what get’s labeled as people being burned out and overworked is less about the actually amount of work their doing, and more about their ability to balance it with all the other competing stuff in their life. To me, that happens because of how rigid the traditional workplace is. And I agree, the “work whenever, wherever” model just doesn’t work for a lot of jobs. But I think it does work far often than many managers or organizations are willing to admit.
Thanks!
Chris
can i chime in on tim’s comment — or your question to him about this: “Something does get lost, when you allow so much freedom and flexibilty to your workforce, that you don’t know who is coming and going, and exactly when things are getting done.”
that something can be a lack of relationships, cultural acclimation, and a sense of combined effort toward a common goal. with companies also moving to more telecommuting, these are all real losses that need to be considered and addressed.
but chris, back to what i was saying. i don’t think work/life fit is just about avoiding burnout. and i don’t think it should be a career killer either (what i think kris was suggesting). work/life fit is about companies making it a priority to help employees tackle life needs because they get that it makes their business more productive and profitable when they do.
f
@Fran – I’m glad you brought that up! I was just having a discussion about that with Cali, Jody and a few others from the ROWE crowd on LinkedIn a few weeks ago: How do new teams bond in a ROWE?
I do think this is complex. Work/life issues encompass personal responsibility as well as flexibility at work. I think both need work. Sorry HR you are part of it. If you are dictating when and where people work then you are dictating when they can/can’t attend to personal issues. Personal issues affect work – end of story.
But employees also need to learn to say “no” to people at work and at home in the balance equation.
You can’t have it all, all at once – but sometimes HR is an impediment to having it ever.
My take.
Great post, Chris. As always I love your voice on this issue.
Great discussion and topic.
This is an issue of choices, and those choices are not necessarily made by HR. As an individual, I choose what life issues are important to me and weigh them against work issues. I choose to get my work done, and more, because I want to be valued by the people who cut my checks. When I choose to go a doctor’s appointment for my son, or come in late to put my kids on the bus, I choose to do that, and I trust my boss to choose to understand, based on his understanding of my situation and my value to the company. I have always had good bosses.
I also choose to not fool myself into thinking that I can “work as much from home.” I am sure there are exceptions, but most folks I know are more productive when they are at work. They can also focus, knock the work out, and get back to the life part of their balance. I am connected all the time, and I ococasionally choose to do extra work from home, but that is not a trade-off to showing up.
HR can train managers to be supportive of great employees and managers making good choices, but I don’t see HR as the driver behind creating a virtual workforce.
@RJ – Absolutely, everyone’s different. People can choose to be in a flexible workforce if that’s there thing, or not if it’s not. But I imagine organizations that don’t embrace or support flexible work arrangements will be at a disadvantage in the coming years.
From your perspective, does when you do your work in day (before lunch vs. after dinner) really matter? If you took your son to the doctors in the morning, left a normal time, and then did some work after dinner, would that usually have an impact on the quality or quantity of work you produced?
Ironically most of the people I know get a lot more done at home, simply because they have fewer interruptions and “drive-by’s” from people popping into their cube.
As far as HR being the driver to a virtual workforce… who made the policies that force people to be in the office during a specific set of hours? It’s not the employees!
@RJ – To clarify what I wrote above, removing your personal work preferences (ie. if you work better at the office or you personally are a morning person or night person), does when you do your work really matter (assuming you got it done by deadline)?
Chris–
I don’t know that we have set hours; I have never checked. I am sure we do, but I work in an employee-owned firm where most folks manage themselves pretty well. We trust our managers to set expectations. I think that is my point: Good managers and employees figure it out, and HR does not need to be there unless it’s not working. For bad managers and bad employees: that’s a different problem with a different solution than we are discussing.
I do a lot from home and get good work done there, but the bulk of my work is in the office. Many of my partners like to come in on Saturdays. That does not work for me, but does for them, so, again, we are all figuring it out.
One note: There is great value in the drive-by–that informal and unscheduled interaction/discussion/collaboration is important in my work; it might not be in others’. I learn about issues/problems/concerns better face to face than I can via email. The two are not exclusive, but they are different interactions.
@RJ – How big (or small) is your organization? It sounds like you guys are already pretty flexible. I don’t think all organizations, particularly larger or more traditional ones, are like that.
My real point is that people need the flexibility to work how they work best. Sounds like you and your peeps may already have that.
I can see where you’re coming from with the informal meetings, and kind of agree to an extent. Are random stop by’s always “informal meetings” though? I’m sure at many organizations there’s a lot of bullshitting and killing time. I’m sure you’ve seen the stats on how long it takes most people to recover from an interruption and get back on task?
In my case, I work with and support a global organization. Random stop-by’s really aren’t an option for many of the people I work with, but they can “random phone call me” anywhere.
I actually prefer face to face for some interactions, too, so I definitely get where you’re coming from there.
You’re right on about everything. Thanks to technology, most work can be performed any where. Unfortunately, most managers’ attitudes are stuck in the 19th century when it comes to telecommuting. They believe that if they can’t see you working, then you’re probably not working. It’s a trust factor that they won’t/can’t overcome.
Personally, I’ve never been more productive or happier than I am now working at home. I no longer have that nasty commute, and if I want to work 12 p.m. – 12 a.m., I can (it turns out that those are the hours that are more productive for me).
So, the question is: “how do we get managers to shed their Victorian attitudes about telecommuting?”
=>Donna Caissie, the ExtraOrdinary HRVA
hrva@extra-assist.com
http://www.extra-assist.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/donnacaissie
http://www.twitter.com/donnacaissie
@Donna, I don’t know if I’d say I’m right about everything… but thanks for the comment!
Saw this great video today from Guy Kawasaki on the AMEX OPEN Forum: http://www.openforum.com/idea-hub/topics/the-world/video/stay-on-the-curve-die-on-the-curve
I think many HR pros are still hung up on controlling people’s time – when, where and how they work – instead of coaching them on how to work better. Control is HR 1.0. Collaboration and freedom is HR 2.0. Let’s jump to that next curve!
Chris –
Thanks for jumping in with the response. Here’s my take to your points – you’re right in many ways. I like team members like you, and I want you to have that flexibility. Guess what? Players get flexibility because of who they are. Not because HR is responsible for the definition of balance you lay out – which btw, I like very much.
You’ve got passion, which means you’re as likely to add value on a Sunday afternoon as Tuesday at 4:30pm. You have to provide that on your own. Unfortunately, most of the people who want balance don’t have your passion or drive. You create the balance in your life by being who you are, and you’re naturally drawn to orgs that get that tradeoff.
The free market rules in that way. HR can’t mandate the passion on your end, or the flexibility for the masses in the orgs they work in – cause not everyone deserves it or meets it with your mentality…
Good stuff CF – KD
KD has spoken!
Kris, thanks for jumping into the fray! I hope you’ll indulge a few questions:
Unfortunately, most of the people who want balance don’t have your passion or drive.
Do those folks have a place at your organization? This is the old, “Do you want a team of all A-Players, or do you need B and C Players too?” debate.
You create the balance in your life by being who you are, and you’re naturally drawn to orgs that get that tradeoff.
A part of me really believes that organizations that don’t understand or embrace flexibility will be at a disadvantage in the coming years. Do you agree or disagree with that, and why?
Thanks, Kris! Always appreciate your insights!
KD –
Unfortunately not all organizations think the way you do. And force employees to choose between personal conflicts and filling a chair at work. I should know, I had that conflict. I quit my job. And now I am told (by HR, by the way) that if I want to work flexibly I will need to start full-time, then they will let me know if I can go down to a 35-hour/week schedule with 1 day from home.
Sorry full-time simply does not work for me and will not for a very long time. Your thoughts?
I think it’s not so much about balancing life and work but seamlessly blending the two in such a way that we can contribute more value to our clients/employers. Also considering that our contribution is in alignment with our compensation.
We don’t want to under-contribute but don’t want to over-contribute either.
Also, we want to contribute the pre-agreed value using as little of our time and effort as possible.
I think the whole full-time concept is bogus. It’s more like full commitment and full engagement regardless of elapsed time.
But it also depends on the nature of work. Yes, nurses and firefighters are location and time-dependent.
Sadly, in the age of the knowledge worker, many companies are still in the vise grip of Frederick Taylor and his “scientific management” with his dreaded stopwatch.
As Niels Bohr said many years ago, “science advances funeral by funeral.”
Many executives and managers have to kick the bucket in order to properly enter the knowledge age. But it’s coming.
@Tom – Don’t hold back… tell us how you really feel! ;-)
Thanks for the comment!