Work-life Balance and Employers’ “High Performance” Practices

2. Work-life Balance and Employers’ “High Performance” Practices By Michael White Policy Studies Institute London, UK m.white@psi.org.uk

3. Acknowledgements • Based on paper appearing in British Journal of Industrial Relations June 2003 • Study funded by ESRC’s Future of Work research programme • Additional support from the Work Foundation • Survey interviewing by System 3 Social Research • Research team & authors of paper: Stephen Hill (Royal Holloway), Patrick McGovern (LSE), Colin Mills (Nuffield College), Deborah Smeaton and Michael White (PSI)

4. Background to British debate on work-life balance • Britain’s “long hours culture” • Perceived crisis of family life – media focus on “working mums” • 1998 Green Paper “Fairness at Work” & 2000 Work Life Balance Campaign • Business case for flexible working hours and other work-life balance practices

5. Towards a wider perspective • Why do conflicts between working life and family life arise at this time? • Is it because of increasing employer work demands in pursuit of higher performance? • Can this conflict be removed without modifying employers’ performance-centered practices that generate long hours and work pressures?

6. Research background on work-life balance • ‘Overworked American’ and ‘Time squeeze’ • Adoption of Human Resource Management practices in USA and Britain • Idea of high-performance or high-commitment work systems • Evidence of employer practices increasing work demands: groups/teams, performance related pay, appraisals.

7. Main questions for our research • Do long hours increase employees’ feelings of conflict between work and family life? • Do specific HRM practices increase these feelings? • Do flexible working hours & time choices reduce these feelings? • Are feelings of work-family conflict higher in dual-earner couples and/or those with young children?

8. The research data • ‘Working in Britain 2000’ survey: nationally representative sample survey of employees, with 1-hour interviews in the home • 2132 employees, 65% response rate • Replicated many questions from the ‘Employment in Britain 1992’ survey

9. Measuring work-life conflict (‘negative work to home spillover’) ‘How often would you say the following statements are true of yourself? (Almost always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never) 1. After work I have too little time to carry out my family responsibilities as I would like. 2. My job allows me to give the time I would like to my partner/family. • My partner/family gets a bit fed up with the pressure of my job.’

10. Felt work-life conflict in 2000

11. Workplace practices in the analysis • Appraisal intensity (sum of 5 questions about appraisal) • Work in group, group determines work effort, take part in work improvement group, have group PRP • Profit sharing/share scheme, workplace PRP, individual PRP, merit-based salary increase, incentives determine work effort • Flexible working hours, can decide own working times • Actual weekly working hours

12. Development of workplace practices, 1992-2000 • No change in appraisal intensity • 3 out of 4 ‘group’ measures increased • 3 out of 5 ‘incentive’ measures increased • Availability of flexible hours increased • General diffusion of HRM • % of employees working long hours (e.g. 48) increased, especially men

13. Analysis method • Multivariate analysis of felt work-family conflict … • … in terms of hours worked, workplace practices, flexible/discretionary hours, family composition, financial pressure • … with controls for supervisory fairness, job insecurity, TU present, age, social class, second job, employment commitment, use of IT in job. • Separate analyses for men and women.

14. Results in 2000: working hours • Feelings of work-family conflict were greater for those with longer hours • Men and women were affected to the same extent • The relationship was the strongest one, statistically speaking, in the whole analysis • The relationship was as strong in 2000 as in 1992.

15. Results in 2000: HRM practices that affect work-family conflict

16. Changes from 1992 to 2000 – HRM practices • Six positive links between HRM practices and work-family conflict in 2000 – four in 1992 • Two negative links between HRM practices in 1992, both moved in positive direction by 2000 • Changes over time could result from different approaches to applying HRM practices

17. Results in 2000: How flexible hours and time discretion affect work-family conflict

18. Changes from 1992 to 2000 – Flexible and discretionary hours • For women in 1992, flexible hours did not reduce felt work-family conflict • Men in 1992 used discretionary hours in such a way as to increase work-family conflict

19. Results in 2000: How family structure affects work-family conflict

20. Changes from 1992 to 2000 – HRM practices • Dual-earner couples did have higher work-family conflict than single people in 1992 • Men with pre-school or school-age children did have higher work-family conflict than men without dependent children in 1992 • Overall impression is that family factors were getting less important for work-family conflict over the 90s

21. Summary of main findings Felt work-family conflict affected by: • Weekly working hours • HRM practices in 2000 • Flexible hours and choice over hours. Rise of HRM practices over 90s cancelling (slow) growth of flexible hours. • Dual-earner surprise. • Falling impact of children.

22. Implications for research & practice • Research into work-life balance should investigate workplace practices that increase time and work pressure demands. • To develop work-life balance, need to modify HRM practices as well as bring in flexible and family-friendly practices. • Length of working week remains of great importance.