Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award for Excellence in Work-Family Research
To return, or not to return: that is the question
The News of Our Demise is Much Exaggerated
March 30, 2009 — There has been a noticeable uptick in media calls recently pursuing the notion that work-life must be in its death throes during this recession, or at least in massive retreat. The argument seems to be that surely taking care of the people who work for you is out of the question today, conditions being as harsh as they are. An article on March 23 by Annys Shin in the Washington Post exemplifies the refrain: “As Cuts Loom, Will Working from Home Lead to a Layoff?.”
Everyone should be grateful to have a job, so why shouldn’t employees be working 14 or more hours a day without so much as a grumble, putting up with no or substandard support for childcare, and foregoing all or most of the work-life support that has demonstrated an impressive return on investment over the past decade? Never mind the empirical evidence that companies that show the most respect for the juggling act of the predominantly dual-career American workforce have enjoyed two to three times the stock value of companies who behave like the media assumes they should today. After all, stock values are in the tank, so why should we care about respect or the stress caused by overwork, declining finances and poor childcare?
I certainly understand that bad news sells. But I’ve been in the workforce and involved in the work-life field longer than most of the people who interview me. So, at the risk of poking a hole in the most profitable story line of the moment, the facts don’t altogether support the premise that support for work-life is on the ropes. In fact, historically, work-life has proven itself to be remarkably recession-proof. What those of us in the field know that many reporters forget (or haven’t done enough homework to discover) is that work-life as an integral business strategy has consistently sprouted deeper roots when times get tough. Why?
Three simple truths: 1) it is inexpensive, making it an even more compelling bargain in trying times; 2) it makes people feel better in the midst of pain and turmoil, and 3) work-life strategy is a complex endeavor that transcends work scheduling flexibility (the often single-minded target of journalists) to encompass a portfolio of six categories (clusters) of practices and policies, some of which are undeniably growing in this recession, especially community involvement and support for wellness and antidotes to the high levels of stress we all suffer today.
What we’ve learned time and again in eras where layoffs become a monotonous refrain (yes, we’ve been here before) is that work-life programs and policies serve as a cadre of “survivor benefits.” When companies run short on money, they discover that substantial proportions of their workforce perceive time as a form of currency. This is equally true in non-recessionary times, but right now it is impossible to ignore as a fact of working life.
Now, I don’t take offense at the lack of historical perspective of some members of the media. That can be taught, because facts endure. What I do object to is outright bias, by which I mean the practice of selecting facts and quotes that support only one side of a hypothesis. The principle of balance isn’t restricted to that domain of people strategy that goes by the label “work-life.” It is supposed to be a core value of journalism as well.
Thursday. April 2, 2009 2:17 PM
Cali Williams Yost
Kathie I wanted to thank you for challenging the negative, fear-based picture of work life flexibility presented in the Washington Post article. While there are absolutely pockets for resistance to flexibility that have been emboldened by the recession, we see more of the opposite—an increased understanding that work life flexibility is even more important during the recession.
Karol Rose
Well done! Thank you for clarifying and setting the record straight. If anything, the media should be telling the story about how work-life, and particularly flexibility, are actually among the most cost effective approaches a company can take during these difficult times. Instead of penalizing employees who want to work flexibly, employers should be actively soliciting to find folks who want to work part time, take an unpaid sabbatical, work from home or compress their schedules as ways to reduce costs. Maybe if employers were more proactive and promoted flexibility without penalties they'd not only find more volunteers but they'd also 'win points' as an employer of choice. What we know is that when times get better, employees who feel they were treated fairly will stay, while those whose needs were not met, will leave. That will be the true test for employers who demonstrated their understanding of the value of work-life and flexibility in difficult times.
The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of WorldatWork and its affiliate, Alliance for Work-Life Progress (AWLP).
