This month's column sought to pose a trade-off between improved work-life balance and productivity. In general, many among the large number of respondents rejected the notion. As Brian O'Leary put it, " ... finding a work-life balance will not undermine American productivity or threaten our world competitiveness. It may actually help us find ways to be more productive." Susan Seitel agreed, saying "there are ways to have both and we have proof. The country's dramatically increasing output comes coincidentally at the same time more and more employers are implementing the flexibility that workers not only want but must have if they're going to handle their dual responsibilities." David Lovelace asserts that it is "clear that employees with higher morale will be more productive. An organization that focuses on the importance of employees' lives outside of work is going to ... increase morale." Faisal Shaheen takes the matter one step further by asserting that "If not supported and recharged, households will not be able to add productive talent to the future labor force."
There were a number of suggestions about how to resolve any conflicts between work and life more broadly defined. Joe Violette suggests that at least in the project-oriented environment in which he works, one should "Make your family a part of your work team and you'll create a good work-life balance." Lisa Grainger proposes that before imposing a set of practices, "Ask team members what would work for them, their service area, customers, and work colleagues." Stacy Krauss suggests that "Employers who give employees flexibility win in the longer term due to loyalty and a sense of control... Each day presents different choices, and balance allows employees to choose what the priority of the day must be." Marc Michaelson says he has "been frustrated by the programmatic approach to this issue by employers and providers. Leaders, managers, teams, and individual contributors respond much more proactively to the notion of balance when it is placed in the context of their personal values, interests, and stage of life."
There were a few dissenters to these views. Tom Patterson characterized these in opining that "Most people in an organization ... need ... to feed off the urgency of the organization. It's not possible for all people to feel that urgency with the reduced amount of one-to-one contact that now takes place" under more liberal work-life policies.
It's clear that these issues are not peculiar to the United States. Several Indian respondents noted that the issues are becoming more acute in that country. And James Trantham commented that "I noticed while traveling and working in countries in both Eastern and Western Europe ... that this debate is everywhere."
To what degree has technology changed all of this either for better or worse? As Biplab Das said, "With [new] ... technology, how do you draw the line between 'work' and 'life'? ... I think we need new definitions for [these terms] ...." Do you agree? And what interpretation should we place on the unusually large proportion of anonymous responses to this month's column, many of them somewhat doubtful that progress is occurring on the work-life balance front, in part because of the inherent trade-off between productivity and a "work to live" philosophy? What do you think? 