FAQs

What is the current work culture like in the United States?

In our competitive, globalized information society career success increasingly means complete commitment. It should come as no surprise that well-paid, challenging, and satisfying jobs are also highly demanding. At the same time, many of us have (or will have) personal responsibilities. But, the current organization of work and family life in the United States does not allow Americans to reconcile seemingly basic desires for work, family, and personal life.

The traditional way to build a career is by putting in long hours at an office, so called “facetime,” in order to climb the ladder within a company. The ladder is organized around an “ideal” employee. The ideal employee is expected to be able to work full-time, year-round, put in considerable over-time, travel, relocate if necessary, and take almost no time-off.

This traditional worker model is problematic because it fails to consider changes in the make-up of the workforce. In the past 30 years, there has been a significant rise in women entering the workforce, dual-earner households, and single-parent families. In short, there has been an influx of individuals who traditionally (women) or by necessity (single-parents) have significant responsibilities in the home. Despite these major demographic shifts, employers, and the national policies that regulate them, still assume that all employees are able to perform in the work structure of old.

Why does work life conflict with family life?

In the United States, parenting is largely considered a private responsibility. Meaning that, ideally, parents are to provide primary care for their children. Like most ideals, the American parenting ideal is difficult to live up to, especially given the rise of two-income families. (Many families now need two incomes to pay the bills; other families–the fortunate ones–consist of two adults who want to pursue careers.) Still, many Americans dislike the notion of having their young children raised by “strangers” (i.e. nannies, day care providers, babysitters, etc.).

Family life demands a significant investment of time and resources. Research on child development, including important new findings about early brain development, highlights the role of the family in determining child outcomes. And in recent times, parenthood has become more and more labor intensive. As college and advanced degrees become increasingly necessary for job advancement in our knowledge-based economy, and as admissions become increasingly competitive, parents feel pressure to devote themselves to their children’s development. The result is a modern “intensive parenting” ideology that makes many parents feel the need to maintain a frantic schedule for their children – sports practice, music and art lessons, tutoring, volunteer activities – lest their children “fall behind.”

Fully participating in family life limits an employees ability to perform as an ideal worker in the current structure. Given the requirements of modern family life, an employee who is also a parent responsible for driving the kids to school, swim lessons, math tutoring, lacrosse games, and doctor’s appointments will find it difficult to work full-time, let alone mandatory over-time. Family responsibilities are not restricted to individuals who have their own children. They can include everything from being an invested and active sibling, cousin, niece or nephew, to taking care of an ill family member or aging parent– and this is to say nothing about being an engaged community member, active citizen, or good friend.

Despite “family values” rhetoric, there is very little structural support to help people with family and personal responsibilities climb the ladder in America. Whereas employees in other advanced democratic countries are provided with paid sick leave, paid parental leave to care for young children, free or low-cost child care facilities, several weeks of vacation, and limits on maximum working time, American employees are guaranteed none of thse supports.

In fact, the United States offers less government support for childcare than any other industrialized nation. For example, whereas American parents with young children have to pay for private childcare of varying quality, in France, 99 percent of three and four-year old children are enrolled in free neighborhood child care centers that must adhere to national standards. In America, federal law grants some parents the right to brief periods of unpaid leave to care for newborns. But paid leave is uncommon, available only to parents who are covered by geographically limited, temporary disability insurance or private, employer-based provisions. Though parental leave is structured to allow for gender equality in taking leave after childbirth, without guaranteed wage replacement “these rights offer virtually no economic security and only the weakest of incentives for mothers and fathers to share caregiving responsibilities.”

Given the requirements of work and family life, it is not surprising that the vast majority of individuals do not have enough time and resources to “have it all.”Often, individuals have to choose between career and family in a society that touts the desirability and accessibility of both.

Primary caregivers often work part-time so that they have the time to meet their children’s needs. As a result, these individuals are frequently marked as workers undeserving (or “uninterested”) in benefits like career advancement and challenging assignments. For example, a federal report found that part-time workers are generally taken off the partnership track either as a matter of official policy or as a matter of practice at law firms.

Does work-life conflict affect men and women differently?

In a word: yes. In the current work-life scenario, men and women still appear to face significant, and sometimes contradictory, pressures regarding work and family.

Men still face intense pressure to be primary breadwinners. In the average white, middle-class family, the husband earns roughly 70% of the income. At the same time, men face a myriad of cultural stereotypes and pressures that may prevent them from fully engaging in family life. One study found that 63 percent of large employers considered it unreasonable for a man to take any parental leave, and another 17 percent considered parental leave reasonable for a man only if it was limited to two weeks or less.

Perhaps as a result of these pressures, men are significantly more likely to work long hours than women: in the U.S., one-fourth of men, but only one-tenth of women, work more than 48 hours a week. And men with children are slightly more likely to work longer hours than those without, while women with children are less likely to work long hours than those without. A full 30 percent of fathers with children under 14 report working 50 or more hours a week; the same percentage works weekends.

Despite steady improvements in educational attainment and working conditions, women, especially mothers, continue to face disadvantages in the workplace. Since the 1960s, women have entered the workforce in droves. In the United States, 60 percent of women over the age of 16 work, women comprise 46 percent of the total labor force, and women are projected to account for 51 percent of the increase in total labor force growth between 2004 and 2014. Yet, in 2004 women who worked full time earned 76 cents for every $1 their male counterparts earned (and this amount is down from 77 cents for every dollar in 2002). In 2004, the median annual earnings for full-time wage and salary workers was $31,223 for U.S. women and $40,798 for men. Importantly, university-educated women have stopped gaining ground in the U.S. workforce; in a 2005 New York Times article entitled “Scant Progress on Closing Gap in Women’s Pay,” it was reported that the gap between their pay and the pay of male graduates in the United States has actually widened since the mid-90s.

Even though women are entering high-level professions in large numbers, they are failing to reach the top levels. For example, female representation in senior management positions has only risen from 3% in 1980 to 7% today. While women were nearly half of the new recruits of top law firms in New York City in the 1990s, 89% of the partners are still men. Men still represent 95 to 97 percent of senior managers of Fortune 500 companies. And women hold only 13 percent of tenured academic posts and 5 percent of federal elective offices.

There are several reasons to be concerned that the current organization of the workplace is not meeting the needs of women or men or families. In two-earner households, it is often women that “opt-out” of the work force, take on part-time work, or otherwise put their careers on the backburner in order to be the primary givers of parental care. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, labor-force participation for mothers with infants declined in 2000 for the first time, to 55 percent. The increase of mothers staying home with young children has been sharpest among highly educated mothers. One study found that one in four women who earned their M.B.As at Harvard in the 1970s left the workplace entirely by the early 1990s; many of these women said that they had been forced out of the best jobs once they became mothers. In a controversial 2005 New York Times article titled “Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood,” the author interviewed 138 college freshman at Yale and concluded that that while many women in college two or three decades ago expected to have full-time careers, today’s Ivy League women say that they have already decided to suspend or end their careers when they have children.

What are possible reasons that women leave the workplace or fail to reach decision-making positions if they stay?

Sure, there are probably some women out there who want to be mothers and not work at all, ever. (There are certainly men who want this as well). For women who have the option to choose to stay home–and most absolutely do not–the situation can get extremely complicated.

The current work-life model fails to take into consideration the fact that most women who enter the workforce will eventually have dual responsibilities at work and in the home. Nearly 90 percent of women in America become mothers during their working lives. And American women still do 80 percent of the childcare and two-thirds of the housework. On average, mothers spend 31 hours a week on tasks like buying and cooking food, doing dishes and laundry, and caring for children. Adding full-time market work to family work is logistically impossible for many women. Families have to consider if it makes financial sense for both adults to work full-time, as they then have to pay for family work (i.e. hire a nanny, housekeeper, pay for private childcare). Since women continue to earn less than men in the paid labor force, it may appear to make the most financial sense for the woman to perform the majority of unpaid household labor.

Ironically, part of the reason women earn less than men may be that their entry into the workforce is viewed as optional. Traditionally, women have been seen as earning only a supplemental income to their husbands’ earnings. Even today, salaries in traditionally female jobs (clerical, sales, and service occupations) are half to one-third of the salaries in traditionally male working class jobs. Employers of predominantly female workforces often do not provide health insurance to their employees, on the assumption that their employees are married to breadwinners with family health benefits.

What about highly educated, professional families? Can’t they afford to hold jobs and outsource family work?

In 2001, The Wall Street Journal reported that there has been a resurgence of the old family model (male breadwinner/female helpmate) among high-income couples: nearly half of households earning between $250,000 and $499,999 had just one breadwinner in 1998, up from about 38 percent just six years earlier. Over 90 percent of those “breadwinners” are men.

Employees that have a spouse to take care of family life may find it much easier to concentrate on developing their careers; though this is frequently an option for highly successful men, it is rarely a reality for American women. One study reports that nine out of ten men in upper-level corporate management have children and a nonworking spouse. Highly successful women often do not have this option. For example, while nearly half of married male attorneys are married to housewives, 93 percent of married women lawyers have spouses who work full-time (and often as high-level professionals themselves). Women who achieve a high-level of career success often remain single and/or do not have children. One study found that only about 30 percent of women in senior positions have children, as compared to 90 percent of men. The same study found that only 6 to 8 percent of men in senior positions never marry, while almost one-third of women in senior positions never do.

The combination of work structured around an ideal worker willing to commit almost limitless time to the job, and family life organized around intensive parenting with little societal support, contributes to the marginalization of primary caregivers, persistent gender inequalities, and stressful family life. Today, employees are expected to compromise their personal lives, their family lives, even (gasp) their sex lives for their jobs – to undesirable affects.

What can we do to get some balance?

Approach 1: Balance is unrealistic

Proponents of this approach argue that the current organization of work and family life may not be perfect, but is necessary in today’s uncertain and competitive globalized economy. Pressure and hard work drive innovation and achievement. Furthermore, if an American is unwilling to perform as an ideal worker, companies will either become uncompetitive or outsource jobs to workers in developing countries, like India or China. While the term “work-life balance” has made its way into American popular culture, some argue that it’s simply unreasonable to expect a big paycheck and to be home for dinner every night at five.

Generous provisions for workers in Europe – like guaranteed sick leave, family leave, childcare allowances, and limits on working time – place burdensome requirements on employers. Work-life balance advocates who offer Europe as a glimmering example of a healthier “work to live” mantra, must now concede that European governments and companies are increasingly trying to impose longer hours for employees in order to remain competitive. Others argue that mandating a specific number of paid sick days would encourage absenteeism, leaving conscientious employees to pick up the slack for dishonest workers.

What Should Be Done:

We should acknowledge that success at work requires a full investment, as does personal and family life. It’s unrealistic to expect that you will be remarkably successful in both facets at all times.
Individuals should develop realistic priorities, even if it means making difficult choices between career and family. If family life is most important to you, you will probably have to lower your career expectations. If your personal fulfillment requires that you live-up to your potential at work, you should minimize your family and personal obligations.

Dangers and Drawbacks:

This approach does not hold employers to standards proportionate to what they require of employees. With all the focus on competition and dangers of globalization, American businesses are still making record profits.
Embracing the status quo means accepting gender inequality. If women remain primarily responsible for family life – as lingering cultural pressures, stereotypes, and realities suggest they will – women will predictably “choose” to give up professional success.

Approach 2: Balance is Good for Business

Supporters of this approach argue that implementing policies that help workers achieve better work-life balance is actually a good business strategy. A growing body of research suggests that restructuring the work place to be more flexible increases productivity by helping reduce absenteeism, fostering more committed workers, and increasing the pool of competent workers. As Joan Williams, Director of the WorkLife Law Center, argues, “People need to go to the doctor, the dentist, the school play. If no other method is available, they will simply call in sick or disappear discreetly in the middle of the day. What employers find is that if workers are allowed to schedule in that time, many will do those errands on personal rather than company time.” A survey by the American Management Association found that allowing workers flexibility not only cuts absenteeism by as much as 50 percent but also improves work quality and morale.

A working model that typically results in overwork for men and underemployment for women cannot be the most efficient system. Businesses that rely on the traditional working model often find that they cannot retain desirable employees. Turnover means steep costs on businesses who then must recruit and train new employees. Estimates suggest that the costs of replacing a skilled worker are typically .75 to 1.5 of the worker’s annual salary.

Work-life balance advocates argue that flexible policies would help businesses recruit and retain qualified employees. A survey of two hundred human resources managers by the Conference Board found that two-thirds named family-supportive policies as the single most important factor in attracting and retaining employees. Furthermore, what attracts many people to demanding careers is the challenging and satisfying work life, not the speed at which they can climb the corporate ladder. In a 1990 poll, more than half the men surveyed said they were willing to have their salaries cut by 25% if they could have more personal or family time. And one study found that women working for employers who offer flexibility are seven times less likely to quit after having children.

What Should be Done:

Employers should offer paid parental leave to both mothers and fathers, so that parents can share the responsibility of starting a family and then return to work. Many high- profile businesses already offer maternity leave policies, but offer men drastically less, if any, time off. Inequitable policies send the message that raising children is primarily the woman’s responsibility.
Employers should offer all employees paid sick leave for themselves, as well as sick leave to take care of an ill family member.
Employers should make it easier for employees to balance work and family commitments by offering flexible options like job sharing, telecommuting, flextime, compressed workweeks, and pay increases in the form of time-off instead of money.
Employees should be able to advance even if they work part-time. For example, if a full-time employee is eligible to make partner in seven years, an employee working part-time should be eligible for partnership in fourteen years.
Employers should ensure that taking advantage of flexible policies doesn’t bar workers from interesting assignments and promotions.

Dangers and Drawbacks:

Instituting flexible policies is expensive and cumbersome. Even proponents of restructuring the work model admit that “no single solution works best in all workplaces.” It may be prohibitively expensive for all companies to find which particular policies would work best for them.
Offering more policies for workers with family and personal responsibilities leaves single and childless workers to pick up the slack for workers who have families.

Approach 3: Balance is a social responsibility

Proponents of this approach argue that it is the responsibility of the government to protect its’ citizens and that the current work-life model is bad for American families and perpetuates gender-based inequalities. Currently, the US provides less support for workers and families than any other developed nation. While most European states spend 1.5-2.2 percent of GDP on family cash programs, the United States spends only 0.5 percent of GDP on similar programs. Of 177 countries worldwide, the United States is one of only four that does not guarantee paid leave for parents to care for their new-born babies (along with Liberia, Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland). Private child care programs are very expensive in the U.S., averaging $286 or 9 percent of family earnings each month. As a result, socioeconomic status plays a large role in determining access to private preschool. Advocates of this approach argue that if Americans truly value family, the government should work do more to actively support work-life balance.

Those who argue that work-life balance is a public responsibility, contend that women will never achieve true equality until they have the same opportunities as men to perform as “ideal” workers in the eyes of employers. This may mean that employers have to adjust work requirements to ensure that individuals with family responsibilities also have the chance to advance their careers.

What Should Be Done:
Legislation should be passed that provides for paid maternity and paternity leave, paid sick leave, and public child care.

Employers should be held legally liable if they structure the workplace in a manner that discriminates against individuals with family responsibilities (for example, requiring over-time).
Employers should be required to provide paid vacation time.
Employers that offer flexible policies like job sharing, telecommuting, flextime, compressed workweeks, etc. should be eligible for special tax breaks in order to encourage other employers to follow suit.

Drawback and Dangers:

The government should not interfere with business policies; the market should be left to its own devices. Implementing public child care programs and mandating parental leave would burden already overburdened taxpayers. Furthermore, childless and older taxpayers would be subsidizing workers with families.
Generous family policies in Europe have not changed the norm of male breadwinner-female caregiver. For example, twenty years after the introduction of paid paternity leave in Sweden, only 11 percent of the total number of days taken off work to care for newborns were taken by men.