To what extent should organisations take responsibility for an individual’s work-life balance?
The responsibility of organisations is pivotal in influencing an individual's balance between professional and personal life—however, the scope of this responsibility has subtle distinctions. As Allen et al. (2014) suggest, flexible working arrangements can significantly improve work-life balance, yet it is contingent upon organisational culture and employees’ circumstances.
Critical thinking on this topic reveals a spectrum of perspectives. On the one hand, the psychological contract between employer and employee implies a mutual responsibility for work-life balance (Kossek et al., 2011). On the other hand, the individual agency must be considered, as employees have personal choices and responsibilities outside their professional lives (Shockley et al., 2015).
For the effective implementation of flexible working arrangements, there must be an open dialogue between employers and employees, which facilitates the customisation of these practices to address the unique requirements of each individual (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). This not only supports work-life balance but can also enhance job satisfaction and organisational commitment.
Research by Heras et al. (2017) indicates that supportive leadership is pivotal in implementing flexible work policies effectively. Leaders who understand and champion flexibility can cultivate a culture that respects individual work-life boundaries while maintaining productivity.
Reflection on this subject might involve considering the complexities of diverse workforces, where varying life statuses and personal commitments influence the ideal work-life balance for each individual. Organisations that listen to their employees and adapt accordingly may find a more motivated and engaged workforce.
In summary, while organisations should proactively facilitate work-life balance, employees must articulate their needs and engage with the solutions provided. It is a collaborative endeavour where the ultimate responsibility is shared, reflecting an evolving dynamic that requires attention and adjustment.
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
- Heras, M.L., Rofcanin, Y., Bal, P.M., & Stollberger, J. (2017). How do flexibility i-deals relate to work performance? Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 38(8), 1280—1294. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2203
- Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Human Relations, 63(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349199
- Kossek, E.E., Baltes, B.B., & Matthews, R.A. (2011). How work-family research can finally have an impact in organisations. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 4(3), 352-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01353.x
- Shockley, K., Ureksoy, H., Rodopman, O.B., Poteat, L.F., & Dullaghan, T.R. (2015). Development of a new scale to measure subjective work-nonwork balance. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 37(1), 1—26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2046
Is resistance to change something to be eliminated or nurtured within organisations?
Resistance to change within organisations is a multifaceted phenomenon that has received considerable attention in scholarly literature. It is not an issue that can be classified as something to be eliminated or nurtured without a nuanced understanding of its roots and implications.
Scholars like Piderit (2000) suggest that resistance to change can be viewed through ambivalence rather than outright opposition. Resistance might embody a deeper dialogue where employees express concerns and contribute to refining the change process (Piderit, 2000). This viewpoint suggests that managers should interact with resistance constructively instead of trying to remove it, as doing so can yield valuable insights that may contribute to the successful execution of change.
Furthermore, Oreg et al. (2011) explore the individual differences in dispositional resistance to change and suggest that the propensity to resist change is a stable personality trait. This research indicates that while resistance can be managed, it may not be eliminated due to inherent individual traits.
Cultivating resistance rather than suppressing it coincides with the principle of positive deviance. This suggests that resistance can act as a wellspring for innovative thoughts and critical analysis that question the conventional norms, potentially leading to organisational improvements (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003, pp. 207-244). This is particularly relevant in the context of flexible working and leading and developing people, as nurturing a culture of openness to dissenting voices can lead to more agile and adaptive organisations.
In practical application, leaders should focus on the underlying concerns that fuel resistance, such as fear of the unknown or perceived threats to job security (Kotter, 2012, pp. 20-32). By acknowledging and addressing these concerns, leaders can facilitate smoother transitions and create an environment that values employee input.
In summary, resistance to change should neither be categorically eliminated nor uncritically nurtured. Instead, it requires a balanced approach that recognises its potential as a constructive force for critical evaluation and improvement within change management frameworks.
References
- Kotter, J.P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
- Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organisational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 47(4), 461—524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
- Piderit, S.K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognising ambivalence. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783—794. https://doi.org/10.2307/259206
- Spreitzer, G.M., & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive deviance and extraordinary organising. In K. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organisational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 207-224). Berrett-Koehler.
