Man in suit circa 1903 (Wikimedia Commons)
At
6:30am he gets dressed for work, eats a home cooked breakfast, and says
good-bye to the wife and kids. He tackles the workday with
single-minded focus. He is available to stay late or take a business
trip at the drop of a hat. After a long workday, he returns home to
dinner and relaxation, while his wife takes care of the meal, home, and
kids.
No, this scenario is not from an episode of
Mad Men.
While it seems to parody an outdated lifestyle, it is not far from what
we expect of employees today. The “ideal” worker is perpetually
available, has no outside responsibilities or interests, rarely gets
sick, and prioritizes work above all else.
The lives of workers have changed, but society’s idea about what
constitutes an ideal worker has not. The tension between work
expectations and personal lives can put the interests of employers and
employees at odds. But does it have to be this way? Professors Joan
Williams and Mary Blair-Loy spoke about their research at Stanford as
part of a multi-university
working group organized by the
Clayman Institute. Their work will be published in a forthcoming special
issue, “The Flexibility Stigma,” in the
Journal of Social Issues.
Today’s workforce: More than breadwinning fathers and stay-at-home mothers
In the myth of the ideal worker, employees can maintain a
single-minded focus at work because they have full-time support at home.
Current trends in labor statistics point to a broader array of family
working arrangements. Since 1950, the sharpest workforce increase is
among mothers of young children. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 48% of married couples are in dual-income households where
both the man and the woman work, and there are more working mothers than
there are working fathers in the U.S.
In many cases, the expectation of extreme work is at odds with the
needs of the family. Workers are expected to prioritize work, yet they
no longer have the backstage support at home to do so. With an uncertain
economy, staying at home is a luxury most families cannot afford.
Parents are expected to take care of the home and family, as well as
provide income. This conflict is not only felt by working parents. With
baby-boomers aging, workers are increasingly engaged in eldercare.
While our lives have changed, expectations of what we can do at and
for work have not kept pace. Williams and Blair-Loy examine the tenacity
of the ideal worker myth.
American work devotion
Blair-Loy’s research examines the underpinning of extreme work expectations: our all-encompassing work devotion. In her book
Competing Devotions, Blair-Loy
defines work devotion as a cultural ideology that “defines the career
as a calling or vocation that deserves single-minded allegiance and
gives meaning and purpose to life.” This ideal is embedded in our
culture, organizational practices and policies, such that most of us
take it for granted without noticing its presence.
Work devotion is deeply ingrained in the psychology and ideals of the
“American Dream.” As a culture, we strive to be self-made and nurture
the individualistic notion that if we work hard enough we will succeed.
This devotion is influenced by the Protestant work ethic that hard work
is the duty and the measure of worth of individuals.
In interviews with corporate executives, Blair-Loy finds that work
devotion not only defines our assumptions about work, but also instills
moral and emotional commitment to it. It gives the worker a sense of
identity, competence, belonging and purpose. It is highly
seductive—there can be a pleasure to overwork and a collegiality between
over-workers. One research respondent said “The pace, getting up in the
morning with a rush of adrenaline. Every day we'd be coming into work
to do impossible things. The whole team would work to do it…there were
no barriers to what we could accomplish to forward the mission of the
organization.”
Blair-Loy’s research shows how devotion at the top can become a
standard for an entire organization. Those who personify work devotion
are more likely to be promoted, obtain more power, and then demand work
devotion from their subordinates. High-level executives endorse
work-devotion more than those at lower levels, reinforcing the cycle of
extreme work expectations.
Blair-Loy illustrates that high-ranking workers, who often have
backstage support at home, use work devotion to validate traditional
work structures. One male CEO described his workers as “bleeding and
dying” for plum jobs to explain why he would not offer-part time work.
In Blair-Loy’s ongoing research, male executives felt little work-life
conflict, since their wives took family responsibility. Work devotion
can blind those at the top to the needs of their workforce.
Enforcing the myth
Today’s workers feel the pressure to conform to ever-increasing work
demands without backstage support to manage the rest of their lives. One
proposed solution to this conflict is flexible schedules. Best Buy
Corporate Headquarters implemented the
Results-Only Work Environment,
for example, to allow workers to decide how and when work was
completed. Managers focus on what is completed rather than on time in
the office. This new approach increased productivity and reduced
turnover rates by 46 percent. In other words, it nearly cut their
recruitment, hiring and training costs in half.
If Best Buy’s novel approach produced strong work results and reduced
turnover versus the “bleeding and dying” of extreme work, why haven’t
more workplaces implemented similar arrangements?
Williams explains that flexibility is not widely used because workers
who seek flexibility are devalued by “flexibility stigma.” Like wearing
a Scarlett Letter, flexibility stigma can lead to social disgrace or
even discrimination in the workplace. It demarcates anyone—men and women
both—who draw attention to their caregiving responsibilities by
requesting parental leave, reduced hours, or a flexible schedule. While
American work devotion ideals generate extreme work standards,
flexibility stigma threatens to punish those who violate those
standards.
In her book
Reshaping the Work-Family Debate, Williams
explains that flexibility policies are often “shelf paper” for good
public relations, but workers’ fear of repercussions fuels low usage
rates. One study showed that 33% of professors did not request needed
parental leave because they feared career
penalties.
Flexibility seekers’ fears are well founded. Those who request flexible
arrangements for family care are seen as poorer organizational
citizens—less committed, competent and deserving of rewards. For
example, part-time lawyers are perceived to be “time-deviants” because
billable hours largely measure excellence and
commitment.
While Williams’ research shows the darkside of flexibility, she
remains optimistic about the potential for flexible work to deliver
better results for companies and workable lives for employees. She
believes a win-win is possible if we alter our conception of the “ideal
worker.”
Workplaces of the future
Instead of looking to past practices, both Blair-Loy and Williams
praise companies willing to experiment with entirely new structures and
ways of thinking about work. As with the Best Buy example, the company
experimented with a new performance structure and benefitted from
reduced work-family conflict and turnover rates. Perhaps the “secret
sauce” has yet to be discovered. But the research conducted by Williams,
Blair-Loy, and the group of academics and professionals organized by
the Clayman Institute, may just deliver the smart frameworks needed for
companies to succeed.
-------------
Mary Blair-Loy
is an Associate Professor and the Director of Graduate Studies &
Founding Director at the Center for Research on Gender in the
Professions at the University of California San Diego. She uses
multiple methods to study gender, the economy, work, and family.
Blair-Loy explicitly analyzes broadly shared, cultural models of a
worthwhile life, such as the work devotion schema and the family
devotion schema. These cultural schemas help shape workplace and family
structures.
Professor
Joan C. Williams
is Distinguished Professor of Law, UC Hastings Foundation Chair,
Founding Director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of
California, Hastings College of the Law. According to
The New York Times,
"she has something approaching rock-star status" among work/life
advocates. She has authored or co-authored seventy academic articles and
chapters and five books.
