Work-life Balance and Employers’ “High Performance” Practices By Michael White Policy Studies Institute London, UK

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)

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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. 3. My partner/family gets a bit fed up with the pressure of my job.’

Felt work-life conflict in 2000 %with highly negative views MenWomen Family responsibilities34%39% Time for partner or family 38%48% Family or partner gets fed up 52%65%

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

Development of workplace practices, 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

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.

Results in 2000: working hours F eelings 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.

Results in 2000: HRM practices that affect work-family conflict WomenMen Appraisals intensityIncreases **Increases * Group determines effort NoneIncreases * Work improvement group Increases *None Group PRPIncreases **None Pay increases determine effort NoneIncreases **

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

Results in 2000: How flexible hours and time discretion affect work-family conflict WomenMen Flexible hours system Reduces **None Decide own hours NoneReduces **

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

Results in 2000: How family structure affects work-family conflict WomenMen One-earner couple Increases ** Two-earner couple None Youngest child is pre-school Increases **None Youngest child is school-age Increases **None

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

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.

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.