Introduction: What work? What life? What balance?

Doris Ruth Eikhof, Chris Warhurst, Axel Haunschild

Employee Relations · 2007 · 202 citations · 10 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The article calls for a critical re‑examination of the assumptions and evidence underlying the work‑life balance debate, arguing that reconceptualisation of both work and life is needed. It achieves this by conducting a comprehensive review of international literature on work‑life balance and related issues. The review finds that the debate largely frames over‑work and flexible childcare as the key concerns, narrowly equates life with women’s care work, and overlooks the need to transform work itself, resulting in myopic policies; the article synthesises a broader evidence base to challenge this narrow focus.

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this article is to initiate critical reflection on the assumptions and evidence underpinning the work‐life balance debate. Design/methodology/approach The article reviews a range of international literature focused on and related to the work‐life balance debate and issues. Findings In the work‐life balance debate, over‐work is perceived as the problem. Nevertheless, beyond working time and the provision of flexible working practices to enable child care, there is little in the debate abut the need to change work per se . The debate also narrowly perceives “life”, equating it with women's care work, hence the emphasis again of family‐friendly polices. Research limitations/implications The article suggests that reconceptualisation is required in analyses of both work‐life balance and the relationship between work and life. Practical implications The article implies that current work‐life balance policies are myopic in terms of addressing the needs and aspirations of employees. Originality/value The article offers a synthesis of evidence that is wider than that typical in current analyses of work and life.

References

10