Passage II

SOCIAL SCIENCE: This passage is adapted from "Companies in a Family Way" by Amy Salesman, which appeared in U.S. News & World Report (@1997 by U.S. News and World Report Inc.).

This is the paradox of the American workplace: Most companies now realize they must make concessions to a world where both parents work, and an increasing number offer flextime [flexible working hours] ,child care, and other programs to help employees cope. But the same companies expect their most ambitious and devoted workers to forgo such options or to take advantage of them only in order to spend more hours at the office. They adhere to a blueprint for success drafted 40 years ago when men went to work and women stayed home. In this conception, work is firmly in the center and "personal life" is squeezed into whatever space remains.

At a handful of companies, however, an experiment is underway that turns this formulation on its head. Rather than appending "family friendly" programs to a traditional conception of office life, these firms are redefining the nature of work itself, making balanced lives for employees a central tenet around which the rest of the company is designed.

Like most new philosophies, this one was born of necessity. Studies show workers want more balanced lives, and companies are wise to adapt if they want to stay competitive. Most corporations start out offering traditional job flexibility programs, but few employees take advantage of them. Child care would seem a good way to help workers handle family responsibilities, but in some cases it adds a new level of anxiety. With emergency child care available, for example, an employee can now come to work even when a child is too ill for day care, secure in the knowledge that a complete stranger is tending the toddler. "We had to ask ourselves if this is really the message we wanted to be sending employees—that work should come first no matter what," says Patricia Nazemetz, director of human resource policies and practices at a large technology company.

A more radical solution seems in order, and a few companies are finding it in a growing body of work by academics, psychologists, and management gurus. That work suggests that if businesses want to help people achieve balanced lives while helping firms profit, the answer is not to add more programs but to revamp fundamental notions about how people work.

Research supports the notion that the key to balancing work and family interests is a well-designed job, one where goals are clear and where workers have control over how, when, and where they get their work done. Underlying this is a recognition that employees have personal lives that sometimes get complicated. In a study conducted at a manufacturer of automotive products known for its family-friendly policies, researchers from the University of Chicago found that workers whose jobs allowed them autonomy and input in decisions benefited most from the company's work and family programs. These employees reported that the policies not only helped them balance work and family demands but made them more committed to their jobs: They submitted twice as many quality improvement suggestions as workers who did not use work-family benefits. If a job was designed poorly, however, offering little autonomy or control, the benefits were of little help.

Not all jobs, of course, seem to invite such reform. Factory shift workers have little choice but to report to work at specific hours. As a result, they are rarely able to take advantage of programs designed to give employees more flexibility in their lives. But if the work itself is designed in a less-structured way, with both personal and business goals in mind, even shift workers benefit.

At one car manufacturing company, for example, an unusual four-day, 10-hour-a-day workweek, with rotating day and night shifts, offers workers more options while allowing the company to keep the plant operating six days a week, 20 hours a day, with minimal overtime. Workers get five consecutive days off at the end of each three-week rotation. Because they don't need to use leave time for appointments, these employees have fewer personal obligations that cut into productivity. And because teams are responsible for deciding how management's goals will be met, employees who need a day off can simply switch with another team member when personal problems do arise.

Few companies, of course, have the luxury of creating a new work culture from scratch, as that company did. But even well-established companies can learn from the innovative auto manufacturer: When such changes start at the top and are driven by business need, they are likely to succeed.