Work to live. Or live to work?

They sound similar, but what’s the difference. And what’s the scientific backing for either stance?

The question of how to attain work-life balance has been a tireless discussion since society entered the global pandemic era. And everyone, from early-stage career workers to late stage career workers, is either seeking an answer to the conundrum or has advice on how to achieve the equilibrium.

I, too, have an opinion on the matter. But never mind my opinion which will probably only add to the madness.

Researchers from Purdue University have explored a new paradigm for what work-life balance should mean for the contemporary worker. Disparities in work-life balance indeed exist, where professionals with more advanced skillsets can negotiate flexible, customizable work environments, a term the authors called “flexibility i-deals” or “flexibility privilege”. Kossek and colleagues contend that these i-deals ( an individual deal with employer for the right to choose workload, work setting, work hours, etc.) are a basic employee right and that if they are collectively implemented across diverse occupational settings, the effect will be mutually beneficial to employee and stakeholders (employers and society at large) alike.

So on the surface, it may seem like there is nothing new here. What workplace today doesn’t toss around the term work-life balance, whether as part of a team slogan or corporate value? Flexibility is a term seen in most job postings, whether the virtue truly exists there or not. Kossek and colleagues zoomed in on the performative vibe of it all. Organizations feel compelled to participate in flexibility culture to seem progressive but some do not actually desire to get their feet too wet. Underneath the smiles and slogans, tensions exist. Several employers do not trust employees to be efficient working from home or choosing their own work hours. They fear loss of revenue and product quality if non-standardized conditions are accepted.

But tensions lie on the employee side as well. As the article pointed out, the live-to-work mentality is heavily integrated into the cultures of the global giants. In the USA, UK, Japan, and many parts of Asia, one’s worthiness as an employee is dictated by how much of one’s personal and family life an individual will sacrifice for the greater good of his or her employer.  The psyche is so deeply ingrained that some workers dare not challenge the status quo by asking for non-standardized work options until they have proven themselves by climbing up the corporate ladder. In this paradigm, work-life balance is a prize reserved for those in the upper echelons of meritocracy.

Kossek and colleagues propose that the right to negotiate flexibility i-deals should be established at a national or industrial level, since employers have conflicts of interest, by holding a position of power in the employer-employee relationship. Likewise, flexibility i-deals must not only be crafted at an individual’s level where the larger goals of a corporation are not considered. Concessions will be required from both sides and thus, it will take the village to mediate for the benefits of both parties. As children carry the torch of the generations preceding them, it is imperative that any arrangement put their well-being as primary interest. The unfair burden placed on a mother who works remotely to juggle work and nonwork responsibilities means that her flexibility i-deals will look different from that of her co-worker’s. Her co-worker, a man who is the sole breadwinner for his entire family may not require as much assistance with childcare, but he will need time to bond with his newborn son without worrying over substantial loss of income.  So there is common ground, common themes that will arise even as the exact structure of an individual professional’s flexibility i-deals does not mirror another’s. Mandatory paid paternity and maternity leave is just one example.

There are so many more gems in this article, but I think that was a good amount to digest for now. The formality of this all excites me. I’m ready for work-life balance to be tangible to everyone, not just a reality for sectors with highly skilled laborers or charismatic individuals who work their way into their bosses’ good graces. After all work-life balance should be a right, not a reward.

Right?

See open-access source article here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10596011221098823.