A reader of this column who follows global trends and has lived in both the U.S. and Europe suggests the questions of the month. He writes: "... Natural resources and geopolitical advantages played no small role in the American rise to power, but the bulk of the credit belongs to the American work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit... There has been a recent shift in American attitudes towards the work-life balance... In some ways, America is adopting a European attitude towards labor: 'work to live' instead of 'live to work.' Several years ago I would have absolutely felt this was a good thing. Though I am not decided either way today, I have a better perspective on the issue. I acknowledge the value of spending time with one's family, but I do not discount the overall advantage a society enjoys when its members are at the peak of their productivity."
Clearly, many organizations regard work-life benefits (as a subset of all benefits) as an investment designed, among other things, to attract and retain talent. Such benefits recognize the growing demands on the lives of people, particularly at times when jobs are being expanded to achieve higher productivityto do more with less. Responses have ranged all the way from flex-time work hours to sabbaticals intended to enable people to tend to extended personal challenges and "recharge their batteries." And of course they include one of the more popular benefits, maternity (and paternity) leave.
The debate centers in part on whether all members of an organization should have access to a similar package of benefits intended to address work-life issues. There are advocates of a cafeteria approach to the matter, one in which individuals can select benefits such as time off, working hours, educational benefits, or even selected assignments from a menu made available to everyone. This is not dissimilar from the cafeteria plan for medical benefits offered by many organizations. Others favor the more traditional approach of clearly prescribed benefits for everyone with a certain amount of seniority. The debate would be more informed if, in many cases, there was a clearer idea of the degree to which these initiatives address real employee needs, how much they cost, and how much quantifiable long-term benefit they create for the firm.
An irony in all of this is that many organizations have made the workplace so much more attractive that they have encouraged employees, often by choice, to spend more rather than less time on the job. At the same time, technology has blurred definitions of the workplace and somewhat fuzzed the dichotomy between work and life. What impacts have these developments had on work-life balance?
Finally, what effects do responses to work-life issues have on productivity at the level of the firm? Do they net out positively or negatively? Does it depend on the nature of the work, the nature of the job, or other factors? If so, should we be more concerned about, and make allowance for, such issues for certain types of jobs and certain people within the organization? Or should a more egalitarian approach be taken to making available opportunities to balance the demands of the job and personal life? And just how will all of this affect national productivity levels? What do you think?