I haven’t seen any discussion in the blogosphere about the stories in the papers of the report of a major research project on Work, Life and Workplace Culture co-authored by Barbara Pocock and Natalie Skinner. Maybe we’re all too busy juggling work, blogging and life. But it’s a pity.
The report can be downloaded from here [pdf].
Since we do a fair bit of dissing the mainstream media round here, I wanted to observe that the story in the Sydney Morning Herald is an exemplary piece of reporting academic research into social issues - summarising the nuts and bolts of the findings and contextualising it with the every day lived experience of citizens.
Obviously the borders between work and non-work (”life” is probably the wrong category to oppose work to) have become much more porous for a lot of people over the last decade or so. The report’s correct to observe that “work/life balance” policies for corporates or public or voluntary organisations are a dime a dozen (and I’ve made a few dimes writing some over the years), but are often meaningless in the absence of meaningful cultural shifts. It’s also I think self-evident that even when one enjoys one’s work, there are significant personal and health costs to overwork. It’s an issue where the boundaries between the personal and the political are also pre-eminently porous, and despite the recognition in managerial circles that balance is a powerful tool for retention and recruitment, there’s a resistance, I think to treating the “private” governance of work as the subject of public discussion and social action. That’s also a pity, I think.
By the way, now that semester is upon us, I’m unlikely to have much time to join in comments on this thread. I’ll be too busy working until 8pm tonight.
Hie thee to the site of Carlton’s Lone Classical Liberal, where this study was pinned down and dissected on the 26th.
Yes, Andrew Norton with his two jobs and his blog works very hard at refuting any suggestion that there is a problem with work/life balance! What value from the Centre for Independent Studies - refuting other studies.
For some reason, Andrew Norton has dropped off the radar screen of my google reader, Jacques. I think he’s got a problem with the feed.
You should check the feed address you have, as they changed during the last server move. RSS software is supposed to honour 301 codes but doesn’t always.
Thanks, Jacques. Will do.
I blogged on the topic (although not on the report itself) and I’m about to do so again. As usual I’m behind in my blogging due to juggling kids, schools and work
[/irony]
Oh, sorry to have missed your post too, Helen! I’m evidently speed-skimming my reader too quickly now that I’m back at work!
Trouble with Adele Horin’s piece is that she chose to illustrate it with a high-achiever, a woman who is a manager of 47 people. Sorry, but this sort of person (whether male or female) could afford all sorts of child-care scenarios to make life easier. If she’s chosen not to do so (and chosen a “responsible job”), then tough luck. And I wonder what different story would have been told had Horin approached one of the manager’s 47 underlings? It would’ve been interesting to know if they could “fly off” before 5 to pick up the kiddies, or could work at home one day a week - both things that their manager is able to do.
I would agree wholeheartedly with the report - and your - conclusions, Mark.
I currently work for one of the largest companies in Australia with a well-deserved reputation for being very progressive in this area, however, your “meaningful cultural shift” hits the nail on the head.
My manager - in stark contradiction to our stated policies - has more than once urged me to forgo lunch and do lots of overtime as part of the job “when things get really busy”. The catch of course being that things are always really busy.
I don’t blame my manager - she’s a lovely person, it’s the system that’s the problem. Oh yes, we’re encouraged to work from home, leave at five on fridays, etc. etc.
However, if you don’t get the work done, which is often not possible in those timeframes, then the policy doesn’t really mean shit.
This has the hallmarks of the problems that arise when well meaning people try ‘reform from above’ as a quick solution to the problems and issues that have arisen as a result of the fact that the powerful have become very confident that nothing and nobody can ever challenge their right to construct the world we all must live in, and adjust to. Much time and effort is spent in convincing daleks like Norton that there is a problem. Why should he and the people on whose behalf he toils, give a rats?
Unless and until challenges from below are overwhelming and frightening enough to raise demands for more control over the ways in which we are all forced to live, then managers like the one Patrick has will always be found to do the necessary interpersonal bullying (’we are all a team here’) to ensure the results required. I am sure the manager is not an ogre. She has a career to build, debts to be paid, and probably a family/household to which her economic contribution is vital in the maintenance of status and financial capacity.
In the larger sense she is not the ‘problem’ . She, or rather her behaviours, merely illustrate the problems that arise when we all talk in idiotic mantras (finding the ‘work/family’balance)that seek to avoid the problem of confliict over the greatest resource available to any economy-people’s undivided time plus willing devotion of skills and effort to an enterprise, plus agreements over how the resulting surplus is to be divvied up.
Unless and until people decide they have had enough of the bull sh*t, and decide to choose to be free by refusing the lying and the bullying, then nothing will ever change, no matter how many reports, statistics and personal stories fill the pages covered with print that only a very tiny proportion of the population ever read anyway.
Pocock et al’s latest missive is but one in a stream of books, reports, papers and articles that have poured out in the last five to seven years, and served so far, merely to enhace reputations for being ‘experts’ on something, rather than organising any resistance to the garbage. Enough talk, let’s see if people are prepared to act. If not, then I am inclined to agree with Norton. Not because I have the slightest sympathy for his position on anything, but because so long as people whine instead of acting, Norton’s positions appear plausible.
amused, the only fault I can find with your comment is that you are not sufficiently specific about which Norton you are referring to.
Obviously you haven’t shifted your culture yet. If she’s asking you to continuously go beyond what the company policies expect for her benefit, then she’s not a lovely person, at least so far as her management goes.
Or, to quote a wonderful sentence from Kieran Healy at CT: That, my friends, is the coolly rational voice of homo economicus. While H.E. has his virtues, and can often help you think straight, sometimes you just have to tell him to fuck off.
Ah, but that’s the catch Desipis, it _is_ for my benefit. Or rather, the benefit of my career/contract extension/chance of transfer, etc. etc.
She really does want what’s best for me in terms of my career, which after all is one of her key jobs as a manager. I reiterate, she’s really is a lovely person, reasonably anti-establishment for my workplace.
But as we all say - it’s a systemic problem, rather than a personal one, and I think everybody has their negotiation and breaking points. I have had workplaces where you are not expected to pull very much overtime, and others where you were not necessarily expected to work that hard. They have their downsides, too.
So in that respect, I think people can and do opt out of these work 24/7 arrangements - sometimes voluntarily, sometimes involuntarily.
I see developments in terms of people working from home, people going part time, leaving to pick up kids etc. etc (and I mean grunts here, not necessarily management). And different jobs have different options you can push for - even the hard-working ones like my current one.
I suspect law firms may be completely immune to these changes, however. The work cultures in the big ones my friends work for seem toxic and completely repugnant to me.
Paul I mean Andrew of course. I don’t why anyone bothers to reply to him on this blog. I know he has a job to do. His job is to ‘boundary patrol’ in order to limit, as far as possible, the things that people might believe are possible. I understand his role, and he has of course, a perfect right to ply his ‘profession’ or ‘trade’. I just don’t believe in pretending that his attention, let alone agreement to something, is any kind of solution to anything at all really.
he, and the rest of daleks, can jam it.
What amuses me about this report is that one of the authors, Professor Barbara Pocock, is rather well known for not exactly adhering to the workplace ideals of work/life balance or in treating her staff consistently or fairly.
As someone who has suffered and survived at her hands, my only learning was that the university was prepared to do anything to keep ‘talent’ like Professor Pocock on at the expense of decent HR practices and fairness to all parties.
Living in the lofty heights of the tertiary ivory tower may make her sound learned, but having more conscientious and skilled researchers working under you who can actually analyse survey statistics and allow her to summarise them in pithy ‘findings’ is a great deal easier than behaving appropriately.
patrickg said:
I think for white collar professional it is often essentially voluntary. Not working the long hours means you probably won’t get promoted as fast or as far, or get paid as much. Maybe some people will think you’re not dedicated enough because there are other people that are willing to work longer hours.
But this is about work-life balance - you sacrifice progression in your work part for more of the “life” part.
That being said, I do agree there are things that employers can do to make the work-life balance easier - eg working from home, flexible working hours etc and there are gains from both sides to be had - more free time for employees, better productivity for employers.