An Interview with Mary Dean Lee and Ellen Ernst Kossek
Pitt-Catsouphes: How do you define the term “reduced-load” work?
Lee: Reduced-load work involves employees working less than full-time and being paid accordingly. It is important to understand that the term “reduced-load” refers to an arrangement that it is voluntary; employees aren’t being asked to cut back for the organization’s sake. These employees voluntarily work less and they are being paid less proportionately.
I prefer the term “reduced-load work” to ”reduced hours work.” Although the reduced hours concept is accurate, it suggests that reduced-load arrangements are for hourly jobs. We focused on the arrangements for professionals and managers who do not work “by the hour” so “reduced load” is the more appropriate term.
Kossek: In a typical managerial job today, full-time work is expected to be 50 to 60 hours per week by professional norms. So working on an 80% basis is not considered to be 80% of 40 , but rather 80% of 50-60. So about ¼ of those working reduced load were actually working 40 or more hours on average a week. This brings up the question what is considered full-time and what is considered part-time when you are speaking about professional or managerial jobs?
Lee: A good example is one of the people in our original study who had been working 80 hours a week as an IT consultant for about 20 years before he requested a reduced-load arrangement. His goal was to work 50 hours a week. So he arranged to change the kind of job he was doing and then negotiated an 80% reduced-load work arrangement where he aimed to work 50 hours a week. This may seem unfair to some, because strictly speaking he was working more than what the Fair Labor Standards Act defines as full-time and yet was compensated for only 80% of full-time. But from his point of view, he was extremely happy. He gained 30 hours a week on average, with only a 20% cut in his salary.
I should mention that, six years later, he is still working in the IT consulting field on this type of reduced-load schedule.
Pitt-Catsouphes: In your Executive Summary, you note that this study is based on 2002-2003 follow-up interviews of professionals and managers who were originally interviewed in 1996-1998 about their reduced-load work experiences. Why did you decide to follow-up with the participants six years later?
Lee: Based on the findings in the original study, we felt that reduced-load work was one kind of flexible work arrangement that seems to help some people at particular points in their lives. Therefore, we wanted to know how people continue to make choices over time in order to have the kinds of careers and lives that they want. We were taking a snapshot in the late 1990s and we learned a lot about reduced-load from that study. However, we wanted to know what happened to these people over time and how were they going to continue to manage their work and their personal lives.
The follow-up study was also of personal interest to me as well, because I had worked half-time for several years when my children were younger. Now, I am doing different kinds of things to try to manage my work and personal life and I thought other people must make different choices at different points in their lives, too. People have to deal with unexpected events and opportunities. An employee may get a promotion opportunity, but that may mean moving to Belgium. Do they take the promotion or not? Why? What can we learn from them about how they make their decisions and how things work out? That was the main rationale for the follow-up study.
There were other reasons for implementing this follow-up study, as well. In response to the findings of the original study, some skeptics said they couldn’t believe that 66% of our sample was rated highly successful while working on a reduced-load schedule. This finding of the “success” of reduced-hours arrangements was not just reflective of the perceptions of the targeted individuals; the bosses and co-workers of the targeted employees also felt that these arrangements were successful. In the first study we used a multiple stakeholder design, meaning that we interviewed the targeted individual, a boss, a co-worker, a Human Resource representative, and a spouse. Therefore, we received multiple perspectives on how the reduced-load arrangement was working out. It is, therefore, significant that there was agreement among all stakeholders in 66% of the cases that the reduced-load work arrangement was successful.
Some people familiar with the results of the original study believed that employees might be able to work a reduced-load or part-time schedule for awhile, but eventually it would have an incredibly negative impact on their careers. In the first study, participants and their bosses told us they did not think reduced-load work was hurting their careers. We wondered “What will happen 10 years later?” In my mind, we needed to follow the participants over time before we could be more confident that reduced-load arrangements do not necessarily jettison career advancement.
Also, in the original study there was a real disconnect between the assessment of the target employees with regard to how much time they said they wanted to work reduced-load and how much time their bosses thought they would be working reduced-load. The organizations thought this schedule would only last a few years for any given individual. Meanwhile, ninety percent of the targeted individuals working reduced-load were stating that they never wanted to go back to work full-time. They had found something that had really made a difference in their lives.
Kossek: We feel very fortunate that the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation supported this follow-up study. There was a 91% response rate in the follow-up sample. We tracked people all over the world, including Israel and France, to find almost our entire original sample.
Pitt-Catsouphes: How do the findings of the study offer new ways to think about innovative ways to work?
Kossek: This study of reduced-load work really shows the true motivation of achieving success at work and at home on your terms; to some extent, our research moves the conversation beyond rigid ideas of the “Mommy track” or the “Daddy track” to the “Achieve on Your Own Terms Track.”.
Many of the respondents felt that they were very good performers at work and equally devoted to their personal lives, including their families. Reduced-load schedules allowed them to have success in both. The reduced-load options allowed these people to navigate life changes: husbands lose jobs, children get sick or have problems at school, mergers and acquisitions happen… We saw such change in the respondents’ lives, and their reduced-load arrangements helped the employees and their families to weather the things that come up in life.
Recently, there have been many articles about the price employees pay when they “opt out” of the labor force for a few years. Reduced-load is the alternative to opting out. There is an article in Harvard Business Review about the cost to companies related to opting out. Employees think they either have to opt out or have a crazy, driven life. There is something in-between that is more than the traditional “Mommy or Daddy track”. Reduced-load can be conceived as a track that involves “achieving success on your own terms.”
Pitt-Catsouphes: Why were there so few men in your study?
Lee: It is important to point out that in our original study we intentionally planned to have 10% of our sample be men, at the request of the Sloan Foundation. We had assumed that we would mainly be talking to women and it would be women seeking reduced-load work as professionals and managers. But the Sloan Foundation encouraged us to include men and get their stories, since there was some convincing evidence that 10-20% of professionals choosing to work on a reduced-load basis were men. .
Pitt-Catsouphes: What were some of the surprising findings from your current study?
Lee: One of the surprising findings was the fact that a majority of the participants had achieved career advancement and continued to have a high level of commitment to their careers, regardless of their employment status at the time of the follow-up interview. Fifty-four percent had received at least one promotion or had made a career move out of their organization to a better situation. Fifty-three percent of those still working reduced load and 74% of those working full-time had experienced career advancement over the 6 years
Kossek: We should note that even though the companies and bosses weren’t really pushing the reduced-load arrangements, the participants did it anyway and took a risk. Yet their salaries were equivalent to those who had returned to working full-time once the adjustments in percent work load were accounted for.
It was also interesting that almost our entire sample still had career goals or dreams for the future. And when we asked them what peak experiences they could identify in the past 6 years, a majority talked about a work-related event. Career is very important to these professionals who have used reduced-load work to help them manage their work and personal lives. It was as if they thought about their careers as a marathon and not a sprint; they wanted to achieve success but at a steady and manageable pace.
Lee: In terms of our assessment of participants’ career advancement, number of promotions received is just one way to measure it. We also looked at people who went through career changes or employer changes and found success in new fields or organizations. Another way to measure career advancement is people’s self-evaluation about their own growth and development. For example, some mentioned how much they valued their expanding skill sets garnered from multiple lateral moves over the years.
We had not expected that so many people would still be working on a reduced-load after six years; it turned out that this was the case for half of the sample. A majority of the other participants expressed a preference for working on a reduced- load basis. Of the people who were working full-time or who were staying at home, the majority said they would prefer to be working reduced-load again. That was very surprising to me. I think what it says is that this is not just a short-term coping strategy for many people; it is a long-term viable way of having a career, having a life, and being able to stay sane and healthy.
Kossek: We should emphasize that the choice to work less is not an individual decision necessarily; it is often times a family decision and reflects a family’s need to function effectively. One of the women in the sample went back to full-time after working reduced-load, and her husband then switched from full-time to reduced-load. Her husband started to think of different ways for this to work for the family.
Lee: To expand a bit, a lot of the career theories that exist have been linked to the traditional man planning his career in a vacuum, as if it is not related to the family. What does he want to achieve in his career and what kind of new skills and experience does he need to put into his portfolio? What we saw was people’s careers progressing but in a broader context, where they are automatically considering all aspects of their lives.
Pitt-Catsouphes: Most of the people in the sample had experienced some changes in their employment arrangements. What were some of the reasons for those changes?
Lee: The changes in employment status included going from reduced-load to full-time, from reduced-load to staying at home, and from reduced-load in a company with an employer versus part-time self-employment.
What we learned is that people’s lives change. For instance, spouses’ lose jobs. We have one spouse who committed suicide; we had children with life-threatening illnesses or social adjustment problems; we had close family friends and family dying or being diagnosed with life threatening illnesses, personal health issues; and we had organizations go through downsizing. This is a lot of turbulence. At first we were asking ourselves is this normal or is this just our sample? We looked at our own lives and realized this is the way life is. Life presents you with things you didn’t expect-some are good and some are not so good. People need some flexibility to respond to those things in their lives. If people are rigidly trapped in a 60 hour work week, it is really hard to maneuver and adapt to these changes.
Another surprising finding was the peaks and valleys that people went through not only related to their personal lives (such as family, health, or jobs) but also the level of organizational turbulence. Over half of the companies had gone through a merger, acquisition, or downsizing during the six year period. People were desperately trying to hang on to jobs or figure out where they were going to be working in one month. It stunned us to see the degree of change that people had to weather in their lives.
Pitt-Catsouphes: What strategies helped the employees to “craft lives that work”?
Kossek: To make reduced-load work for employers and employees, we need to ask, “Can this job be done reduced-load and how do we redesign it? Can things be done more efficiently?”
If it is expected that the employee will do the same work but just “cut-back,” it doesn’t really accomplish what it is supposed to. Thinking only about hours can actually end up in overwork. In many cases, successful reduced-load arrangements involve the re-thinking of the design of the job. Plus, employees with a positive track record who show that they are good performers are often more able to negotiate effective reduced-load arrangements.
Lee: Some employees were able to seek out sympathetic bosses, particularly in companies that were going through a lot of turbulence. It was difficult for those who did not have understanding bosses. For instance, one employee took a lateral move into a new department and realized after 6 months or so that the new manager didn’t understand the reduced-load arrangement.
When some employees got a new boss, they set about to educate and socialize these managers about reduced-load work. They believed it was up to them to make sure their bosses learned how to make this new way of working turn out well for the work unit and the individual.
Kossek: Employees needed to be very proactive and seek out information, network, etc. in order to find a place they could work reduced-load. I was amazed by the creative maneuvering people did to keep their reduced-load. It also gets back to the departments. In some of the companies, certain departments have cultures that just don’t support reduced-load.
Lee: Many people also experimented with their reduced-load arrangements a bit in order to arrive at something that worked well. We came across a number of people who said that initially they had not thought that they could work on a reduced-load at their organization. Some of these employees agreed to work full-time the first 3 months at a new job, but after they settled in, their employers agreed to let them try to work reduced-load on an 80% basis, for example. Others worked full-time during certain seasons when the organization goes flat out and 75% in the slower periods. We found employees matching their work schedule to organizational peaks and valleys of demand.
Kossek: Sometimes, these adaptations to the reduced load arrangement reflected the changes in people’s personal and family lives. For instance, there are child care peaks and valleys. During the school year, an employee might work five days a week but in the summer the employee might work every other week because of the way their child care is set up in the summer.
Lee: Quite a few people mentioned taking leaves of absence as another way of crafting their lives. Their companies had policies that supported leaves when things got to be too much. We also heard from those working full-time that they paid attention to not working excessive hours - the average was 47 hours a week versus the average of 55 hours they reported working before going on a reduced-load schedule originally. Participants said they had found ways to be more efficient. One respondent knew she would have to work full-time because her husband lost his job, but she was not going to give in to the norms around working excessive hours.
Pitt-Catsouphes: What are the implications of this study for organizations?
Lee: We anticipate we will have more suggestions and ideas for the business community as we move forward with the second phase of this project, which will focus on managers and organizations.
However, in this study, Ellen and I heard over and over again that employees have to continuously monitor their loads and they have to talk load issues with their managers. There has to be a trusting relationship and commitment on both the part of the employee and manager. The manager has to understand that these arrangements are going to work only if the individual’s work load continues to be manageable and reasonable.
In reality, open discussions about work loads should be happening whether people are working full-time or reduced-load.
Kossek: Employees’ ability to keep reduced-load work arrangements over the period of six years shows that flexibility is a two way street. There might be times when an employee who normally takes off Wednesdays finds that he needs to work that day during a busy time. At the same time, the company has to show mutual respect and accept that other times the employee is going to stick with the reduced schedule for family reasons. The people that were able to have some way of not being rigid in their work schedules (such as back-up child care) had come to an understanding of when it is important to re-adjust and when they need to stand their ground. Employees weren’t always changing their schedules to meet work demands and the company wasn’t always expecting that either.
Lee: This study convinced me even more that all of us have to deal with crises and family issues in the course of life and we need the flexibility to cut back at work to respond to those events. Organizations that offer reduced-load are going to get commitment from employees, because they feel that the organization understands. Organizations’ workforces no longer just have men with wives at home. Instead, the workforce is predominantly comprised of men and women from dual-career families; they now make up more than half of the workforce.
People are going to have situations that come up where they need some flexibility to deal well with personal and family needs. It is in the organization’s best interest to provide that. Of course, this does not mean that reduced-load can be offered to all employees who request that schedule.
Pitt-Catsouphes: What are the implications of this study for public policy?
Kossek: Canada seems to have embraced reduced-load schedules more than the U.S.
Lee: In Canada, there is a 12 month paid leave guarantee when a person has a child. The leave in Canada is paid for in different amounts depending how much time is taken. It is funded through social insurance (unemployment insurance in the U.S.) which the employee and employer contribute to, and some companies supplement this basic amount. Different companies choose to support it at different levels. At first, companies were very worried about what would happen with the year-long paid leave, but they are learning to adapt to these leaves. Given this situation some Canadian employers commented that allowing an employee to work a reduced-load, such as 80% for awhile, was not a huge leap. Organizations are already wrestling with having to deal with people coming and going and finding ways to sustain productivity and performance as a result of the longer parental leave guarantees.
The UK entitles any employee to a reduced load arrangement if they have a child under the age of 12. This is totally unimaginable in the U.S. In Canada, Quebec has introduced a similar law, but the party that proposed it didn’t win the election.
To contact Mary Dean Lee, please e-mail marydean.lee@mcgill.ca.
To contact Ellen Kossek, please e-mail kossek@msu.edu.
See also Chart: Changes in Occupational Positions among Reduced-Load and Full-Time Employees and Additional Resources Related to Caregiver Bias
|
{literal}
{/literal}
New from the