Work-life balance – implications of imbalance for both individuals and organizations

I have learned the importance of work-life balance for wellbeing of both employees and the organization as a whole, while working in a large manufacturing company. Due to a large volume of work tasks and extremely short deadlines, overtime work of the production sector was more of a rule than the exception.The most demanding role within that sector was performed by line managers, who were directly responsible for the work output of a large number of employees; not only their own company’s workers, but also the workforce provided by numerous subcontractors. The subcontractors’ employees were frequently replaced, so the line managers were required to continuously onboard newcomers into work teams that rarely had the chance to develop beyond the norming phase.

In addition to technical knowledge and people management skills, the nature of their work called for a continuous struggle to get information, resources and secure advantage over others who were using the same means of work in order to get the job done on time. Interpersonal tension and disputes were not rare because the work of one group of craftsmen depended on the completion of the work of another. The line managers were held responsible for a number of things they could not influence, at least not directly. That reality brought continuous stress and high psycho-physical burden on them, imposing the requirements to work overtime – both them and their subordinates. Consequently they had to be available outside working hours, all with the goal of getting the work done with high quality, within the given time, in a safe manner. For people who almost as a rule work six days a week under such a load, a non-working Saturday in the circle of the family meant an indescribably a lot.

Sometimes a medicine can contribute to the disease

At that time, as a psychologist in the HR department, my superior assigned me the task of designing workshops that would help line managers to communicate more effectively and more successfully deal with work stress. Knowing how busy they are, she didn't want the line management to think that our HR workshops were disrupting their tight schedule, so she insisted that I hold workshops on Saturdays – on their day off.

Personally, I had nothing against working on weekends, especially when it comes to workshops, but without much thought I objected to her proposition.

I asked myself: If one of the biggest causes of their dissatisfaction (I measured it) is not having enough time for rest and family, and the purpose of a free Saturday serves exactly that, wouldn't taking away that free Saturday actually add to their existing stress? If rest and family are their greatest values, what value should the workshops realistically deliver so that, in their eyes, coming to work on a non-working Saturday is worth it?

If our HR workshops provide value for the organization, why can’t they be agreed with the line managers and offer them to choose the most appropriate time of their working week? As an HR department, what kind of message are we sending regarding the importance of our contribution to the organization if we perceive it as a hindrance to the regular work of production departments? Why would line managers spend their day off attending something that is not considered important enough to be integrated into their regular schedule?

The scenario was clear to me: if I agree to the proposed appointment, the line managers will be angry that, instead of resting with their families, they are required to spend their free time at our HR workshops, so they will not be cooperative, but rather in resistance. They will put me in the role of a container for their accumulated frustrations and dissatisfaction, implicitly getting the message that our workshops do not have adequate support and therefore no leverage in solving their essential problems.

In the context where the crucial prerequisites for success are missing, no workshop can deliver valid outcomes. In others’ eyes, I would be seen as ineffective and unable to create desirable results, and in my own eyes, untrue to my values. That is, disregarding my firm decision to never do things pro forma, knowing that they will not bring results.

The culture of overload and sacrifice

Over time, I observed more and more how the work-family imbalance shapes the organizational culture. The strong correlation between the number of working hours and income was the key motivator for the line managers to stay at work afterhours (no matter the workload), which pressured them to spend as much time as possible at their work place, at the cost of personal dissatisfaction and damaged family relationships.

The additional incentive was their status as "those who make sacrifices for the organization and can always be relied upon" in the eyes of their superiors and top management and it entailed various tangible and intangible benefits. Those who avoided working overtime for the sake of spending more time with their families did not enjoy equal status with their superiors or among colleagues who worked longer, so they often left the organization for one where they would be more appreciated.

In addition to dysfunctional turnover, this persisting culture of overwork and sacrifice took its toll in the form of frequent mistakes, idling, sick days, and injuries – higher costs all together.

Dynamics behind between work and family imbalance

Within each individual occurs a dynamic that can be described by the system archetype “Success for the successful."

System archetypes are diagrams that help us record some typical behaviors of the system.

It consists of two reinforcing processes (R), with each striveing to achieve greater and greater success in two competing activities. Both activities fight for the same limited resource – time; so the success of one activity inevitably reduces the success of another.

More time spent at work leads to greater work success, which leads to better business opportunities and increased motivation to spend even more time at work - at the expense of spending time with family. On the other hand, the more time we spend with our family, the better quality our family relationships are, so we want to spend even more time with them. Also, in the negative sense, we fall into a "vicious circle": the less time spent with our family worsens our family relationships, so we use work as an excuse to spend even less time at home to avoid problems, which consequently damages the relationships even more and leads to even less desire to engage with family.

Must the relationship between work life and family life resemble a boxing match or can it exude harmony like a coordinated dance couple?

The awareness of the system archetype "Success for the successful" helps us see the dynamic behind our internal conflict - and how our specific activities add to it. However, this imbalance cannot be solved by itself. We need to change the structure that sustains it.

What an individual can do

First, we need to ask ourselves what we truly want. What our vision of the work-life balance looks like? What activities are we willing (and able) to give up, bearing in mind the price that comes with doing that? Depending on the organizational culture, this can mean lower income, fewer promotions, damaged relationships with colleagues who do not share our vision etc.

After realizing what we truly want, our conscious decision to spend more time at home will require setting clear goals. We need to define precisely how to do that, design concrete action steps from our current reality to the accomplishment of our vision of future, and adjust them regularly according to the feedback we receive.

When deciding on goals and activities, it is necessary to include family members as stakeholders so they become fully aware of the gains and/or losses resulting from our decisions. Above all, we have to be honest with ourselves and those supportive of our choice, and not try to manipulate them into getting artificial support.

Chris Voss points out that there are three different 'yes' answers - affirmative, binding and fraudulent. An affirmative 'yes' can often mean just a declarative support, so it's important to assure that the 'yes' we get is binding.

What an organization can do

The consequences of personal decisions related to family and work largely depend on the overall climate in the organization. Unlike before, it is in today’s organizations interest to encourage work - family balance for their employees. The previously sharp boundaries that were separating these two life areas are increasingly disappearing. One of the indicators of these dramatic changes taking place is the growing share of family issues in the lives of managers, which can no longer be ignored. Unfavorable aspects from one area of life often spill over into another so family difficulties affect work efficiency and vice versa. But as the unfavorable aspects from one area of human life spill over into another, so do the positive ones. Therefore, to ensure commitment to results, organizations should support the overall development of their employees.

Bill O'Brien, former CEO of Hanover Insurance, saw the irony in investing enormous amounts of time and money in leadership development programs while ignoring the structure that already exists - the family. He believed that there is little difference between the role of a parent and the role of a leader or manager. Both roles include motivating by example, encouraging others to articulate and pursue their visions, helping uncover the hidden causes of problems, and empowering others to make choices and take responsibility for their choices.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the work- family conflict is not just about time, but also values. It has been shown that the behaviors managers adopted in authoritarian organizations are the same ones that make them unsuccessful parents. For example it is unrealistic to expect that a manager who has acquired the habit of belittling the people he works with will know how to raise a child to become an emotionally stable person with healthy self-esteem.

Only when organizational values are aligned with personal values of employees, carrying the same meaning both at work and home, will managers be able to stop living according to double standards and function as whole, truly integrated human beings.