What are the antecedents, drivers, facilitators, and obstacles of work-life balance?
Work-life balance (WLB) concerns effectively managing professional and personal aspects of life. Originating from societal shifts like the rise of dual-career families and the increase of working women, it is also driven by changes in workforce demographics and remote work facilitated by technology (Allen et al., 2014).
Boundary Theory can help understand this shift, explaining how individuals manage the boundaries between work and personal life (Clark, 2000). The drivers of WLB include recognising its benefits, such as improved job satisfaction, increased productivity, and supportive government policies like parental leave.
Facilitators of WLB include organisational culture and managerial support, reflecting Role Theory, which discusses the different roles individuals play in work and personal life (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Organisations fostering a culture that values employee well-being and supports flexible working can enhance WLB. Technology also plays a crucial role, enabling remote work and flexible schedules.
However, obstacles such as excessive workload, long working hours, job insecurity, and lack of support impede balance (Valcour, 2007). Societal norms like the pressure to be always available or the stigma associated with taking leave for personal reasons are additional barriers.
Critics argue that the concept of balance needs to be revised, suggesting a shift towards work-life integration (Kossek & Thompson, 2016). Achieving WLB is a complex process influenced by individual, organisational, and societal factors. A supportive culture, flexible working practices, and technology can facilitate better balance, but addressing barriers is essential. HRM practices like employee wellness programmes and work redesign can help (Kelly et al., 2011).
References
- Allen, T.D., Cho, E., & Meier, L.L. (2014). Work-family boundary dynamics. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behaviour, 1(1), 99–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330
- Clark, S.C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536001
- Greenhaus, J.H., & Powell, G.N. (2006). When work and family are allies. The Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379625
- Kelly, E. L., Moen, P., & Tranby, E. (2011). Changing workplaces to reduce work-family conflict: Schedule control in a white-collar organisation. American Sociological Review, 76(2), 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411400056
- Kossek, E.E., & Thompson, R.J. (2016). Workplace flexibility: Integrating employer and employee perspectives to close the research–practice implementation gap. In The Oxford Handbook of Work and Family, 255-272.
- Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1512–1523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1512
Why might we need to expand from the diversity lens to the intersectionality lens when evaluating the work-life balance challenges of the contemporary workforce?
When assessing work-life balance challenges, it is crucial to shift from a diversity lens to an intersectionality lens due to individuals' complex identities in today's workforce. While the diversity lens helps acknowledge differences among employees, it can oversimplify experiences by grouping individuals based on singular characteristics like gender or age (Cox, 1994). This can lead to the assumption that all group members share the same experiences, which needs to be revised.
The intersectionality lens, proposed by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), recognises the multi-faceted nature of identities, considering how race, class, gender, and sexuality intersect to shape unique experiences. This lens offers a more detailed understanding of work-life balance challenges, acknowledging that these challenges vary across the workforce and are influenced by multiple intersecting factors.
For instance, single mothers and married men might face different challenges even in the same role and organisation. Similarly, a disabled employee may have unique experiences managing work and personal life.
Implementing the intersectionality lens can be challenging but begins with raising awareness among decision-makers and employees, possibly through training sessions. Organisations can then incorporate this lens into HR policies by considering the unique experiences of different employee groups when designing these policies (Benschop & Verloo, 2006).
Adopting the intersectionality lens can help organisations better understand and address their diverse workforce's work-life balance challenges. It allows for more tailored policies, leading to a more inclusive, supportive, and productive work environment (Eikhof et al., 2007).
References
- Benschop, Y., & Verloo, M. (2006). Sisyphus' sisters: Can gender mainstreaming escape the genderedness of organisations? Journal of Gender Studies, 15(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230500486884
- Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organisations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
- Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalising the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 8(1), 139–167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
- Eikhof, D. R., Warhurst, C., & Haunschild, A. (2007). What work? What life? What balance?: Critical reflections on the work‐life balance debate. Employee Relations, 29(4), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450710839452
