The pressure of work varies from
occupation to occupation – some are more relaxed than others in respect of the
hours of intensity that are required. I remember when I moved into the consulting
sector in my late 20’s having to work 16 hour days at times, especially when we
were analyzing a potential client before the ‘project pitch’. It was exhilarating
and exhausting at the same time – yet I have no regrets for the intensity, it
was required at that particular time and I learnt so much at the same time.
Fortunately it wasn’t ‘constant’ and to
some extent there was a work life balance over time – and as you ‘earned your
stripes’ in the industry from a ‘grunt’ (as us new consultants were called)
climbing the ladder to project manager and above, the intensity shifted from ‘hours’
to ‘strategic output and relationship building’. So there is a time and a place
for ‘intensity’ in some industries, within the career life-cycle.
Yet in some other industries there seems
to be a slight contradiction between the concept of finding that ‘work life
balance’ and how some organizations ‘drive’ their employees. Erin Reid and
Lakshmi Ramarajan mention in their 2016 article how “tales of time-hungry
organizations – from Silicon Valley to Wall Street and from London to Hong Kong
– abound. Managers routinely overload their subordinates, contact them outside
of business hours, and make last minute requests for additional work. To
satisfy those demand, employees arrive early, stay late, pull all-nighters,
work weekends, and remain tied to their electronic devices 24/7. And those who
are unable – or unwilling – to respond, typically get penalized,” (p.86).
This is the ‘new’ world we live in.
Since the financial crisis job security has been a key concern for most
employees. The financial crisis brought with it a constant stream of job
losses, which hurt the life’s of hundreds of thousands of people around the
globe, where many have never recovered. The new demands put on employees are
based on the simple principle that if you’re not prepared to do it – there are
hundreds of people ready to take your place. So fit in or ship out.
Reid and Ramarajan suggest that “many
people manage the pressure to be fully devoted to work by simply giving in and
conforming. Indeed, at one consulting firm among the companies we studied, 43%
of those people interviewed fell into this group. In their quest to succeed on
the job, ‘accepters’ prioritize their work identities and sacrifice or
significantly suppress other meaningful aspects of who they are. People we
spoke to across professions told us, somewhat ruefully, of giving up dreams of
being civically engaged, running marathons, or getting deeply involved in their
family lives,” (p.87).
But this group have another secret –
they’re not motivated to go beyond the basics. They will do their job – work
the crazy hours and sacrifice their personal life – but they won’t be committed
to the organization or be innovators and influencers. They look forward to the
day they can either find a better job or safe enough to get their life back.
Reid and Ramarajan mention “another
strategy employed by another group of workers is to devote time to non-work
activities – but under the organizations radar. At the consulting firm
(mentioned above) 27% of the studies participants fell into this group. These
people were ‘passing’ – a term originally used by sociologist Erving Goffman to
describe how people try to hide personal characteristics that might stigmatize
them and subject them to discrimination. Consultants who were successful at
passing as ideal workers received performance ratings that were just as high as
those given to peers who genuinely embraced the 24/7 culture, and colleagues
perceived them as being ‘always on’,” (p. 87.)
What’s sad about this group is that they
are living a lie and apparently getting away with it. There’s nothing healthy
about this group – to themselves or the organization – though both probably see
this as a win-win, it’s actually a lose-lose as integrity and transparency have
gone right out of the window. They are passing themselves off as company men or
women – yet devoting time to non-work activities without being noticed. They
will ‘sell’ this game playing as a survival tactic, but if you sacrifice
integrity for survival in business, what have you really accomplished and what
type of person have you become.
Yet Reid and Ramarajan highlight how
“not everyone wants to ‘pass’ – or can play the game of passing – and some who
initially revert to ‘passing’ grow frustrated with this strategy over time.
These people cope by openly sharing other parts of their lives and by asking
for changes to the structure of their work, such as reduced schedules and other
formal accommodations. At the consulting firm, 30% of those interviewed pursued
this strategy – identified as ‘revealing’. Although it’s often assumed that
those who resist the pressure to be ideal workers are primarily women with
families, we have not encountered enormous gender differences in our research.
Data from the consulting firm showed that fewer than half of the women were
‘revealers,’ while more than a quarter of men were,” (p.88).
Employees should be able to be
‘revealers’ at any organization – as the concept of revealing links with the
concept of transparency. This is the kind of organization culture leaders used
to strive for – but it seems that standards are dropping in this regard. It’s
in an organizations interests to offer an environment that supports a fair
work-life balance; because if you do the rewards are best for everyone. The
employee is motivated, more healthy, focused and energized and the
organizations reaps these rewards through increased commitment, innovation,
productivity and optimized sustainable growth.
Reid and Ramarajan found, for example,
that “most organizations leave it to the employees to set boundaries between
their work and non-work lives – often with the best intentions. When Netflix
offered unlimited time off, for example, managers thought they were treating
their people like ‘grown-ups.’ But proving complete freedom can heighten
employees’ fears that their choices will signal a lack of commitment. Without
clear direction, many employees simply default to the ideal-worker expectation,
suppressing the need to live more balanced lives,” (p.90).
Sudden change can often be viewed with
suspicion by employees. If a tough organization suddenly offers unlimited time
off – the employee’s natural reaction is to wonder what the catch is. Are they
trying to see who’s not committed to the organization and then the next thing
you know they are downsizing and you’re the first one asked to pack your desk
and leave. Organizations have to have a genuine trusting and transparent
culture before you can start offering unlimited time-off. Change has to be
managed, especially when trying to change from a distrusting to a trusting
culture – it will take a long time and must be approached small steps at a
time.
Reid and Ramarajan conclude by
highlighting how “the pressure to be an ideal worker is at an all-time high,
but so are the costs to both individuals and their employees. Moreover, the
experiences of those who are able to pass as ideal workers suggest superhuman
dedication may not always be necessary for organizational success. By valuing
all aspects of people’s identities, rewarding work output instead of work time,
and taking steps to protect employees’ personal lives, leaders can begin to unravel
the ideal-worker myth that has become woven into the fabric of their
organizations. And that will enhance employees’ resilience, their creativity,
and their satisfaction on the job,” (p.90).
References:
Reid, E. and Ramarajan, L. (2016).
Managing the High Intensity Workplace. Harvard Business School, June, p.84-90.
