National conference on juggling work-life commitments

One of the greatest challenges faced by employers and employees is juggling their work and life commitments.

It is not uncommon for employees to find themselves back home expressionless and exhausted after a hard day's work topped with a few hours' over-time, without barely acknowledging the spouse or children. An hour later, some may find themselves essentially back to work in the barely-lit home study, head bent over papers from the office, till late at night.

Many of us find it hard to leave the job at the office. But then we go home and discover an even more demanding set of commitments facing us there. We may manage to race from one task to another, surviving on less sleep and more coffee, but not endlessly. True, initially we do find that stringent timetables help us get a lot done, but it may also feel like none of it is done well, especially when stress takes the better of us and starts hindering our performance at work, and worse, our general health.

Going in several directions at once carries unpleasant consequences from the point of view of the employer. It affects productivity and sustainability of human resources, families and communities.

With these considerations in view, the Foundation for Human Resources Development (FHRD) and Richmond Foundation recently organised a national conference to discuss "Juggling work-life commitments - Does it make business sense?"

Keynote speaker Suzan Lewis, a professor of organisational and work-life psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University said that the reasons requiring more effort in employment is due to an increase in global competition and the 24/7 economy, coupled with the latest technological advances. These result in an intensification of work, and as a result there is less focus on the worker's needs.

Employers and employees stand equal chances of benefiting from a joint collaboration of efforts of what Professor Lewis termed as the "Dual Agenda": work and personal life integration, and enhanced business performance.

These efforts include employment policies which are necessary but not sufficient such as parental and family leave, child care and other care, and flexible work arrangements such as flexitime, term time working, career breaks, compressed workweeks and teleworking or working from home.

Of course, these policies carry limitations, many of which are related to the stigma which flexitime and leave arrangements have. Professor Lewis said that the policies are often marginalised as arrangements for working mothers and fail to challenge central working practices.

The image of "the ideal worker" working standard hours is hard to shake off. Assumptions, such as that employees need to be "managed" and cannot contribute to strategic or day-to-day decision-making, or that they cannot be trusted to do what is best for the firm without constant management, should be changed.

But how is all this change achieved? One should start off by analysing the type of working culture a company belongs to and assessing what images the culture is delivering.

Changing or modifying cultures is crucial - companies should realise that integration of work and personal life is a central strategic issue, and not a marginal concern.

The next step is for the company to put changes into practice. Sustainable improvements are most likely to be achieved with a focus on the dual agenda, therefore changes are achieved at the level of work groups and not just through individual accommodations.

Professor Lewis, who is also a visiting professor at the School of Management, UMIST, and director of the multi-site Work-Life Research Centre, suggested some practices to help the way through to viable changes. Employer-employee collaboration and feedback are essential - these identify working practices and outline assumptions that undermine the dual agenda.

Feedback and brainstorming sessions could include identification of changes in work practices to reflect the dual agenda, highlighting underlying assumptions and taboo subjects, discussion of interpretations and presentation of findings. Such communication should centre around both the employees' and the management's needs.

Based on her experience, Professor Lewis concluded that mutual trust is at the heart of the change process, crucial to flexibility and innovation, but takes time to develop.

Being open about the state of the business, involving employees in problem solving and legitimising personal concerns creates a context where creative dual agenda solutions can be developed. When employees are involved in decision-making they feel valued. If flexibility is regarded as a business strategy rather than a favour, the reasons for employees seeking flexibility becomes unimportant and there is a willingness to look for flexible alternative working arrangements in a wide range of jobs.

Some pockets of resistance are inevitable but can be overcome by demonstrating fairness and favourable business as well as personal outcomes.

Most of all, working practices which make it difficult for employees to integrate work and personal life can also undermine organisational effectiveness.