Richenda Gambles

The constraints of a ‘work–life balance’ approach: an international perspective.

Locating work–life balance discourse in time and place The huge recent growth in attention to ‘work–life balance’(WLB) dilemmas in academic, political, professional and popular literature might give the impression that this is, at best, a new area of concern, or at worst, a passing fad. This would, however, be misleading. The WLB metaphor is a social construct located within a particular period of time and originating in a Western context, but dilemmas relating to the management of paid work alongside other parts of life, especially family, have been the focus of research for several decades (see, e.g., Rapoport and Rapoport, 1965). Research on this topic has always reflected social, economic and workplace developments and concerns, shifting in response to new trends. For example, as the numbers of women entering the labour force grew, from the 1960s, research in certain contexts tended to focus on ‘working mothers’ or dual earner families, while concerns about stress and burnout associated with workplace changes in the 1980s and 1990s were reflected in research and debate about work–family conflict (Lewis and Cooper, 1999). The terminology used to refer to these issues continues to evolve in response to current concerns. In particular, a shift from ‘work–family’ and ‘family-friendly policies’ with their implicit focus on women, especially mothers, to ‘work–life’, the precursor of the more recent ‘work–life balance’ (WLB) discourse began in the 1990s. This linguistic shift reflected a broader and more inclusive way of framing the debate to engage men and women with and without children or other caring commitments and was partly a response to backlash against work–family policies by those without obvious family obligations.

Reflections on the integration of paid work and the rest of life

Despite a wealth of research and policy initiatives on “work‐family”, “work‐life balance” or what we prefer to call work‐personal life integration, societies seem stuck about how to make equitable, satisfactory and sustainable changes in the ways in which paid work can be combined with the rest of life. So what is holding back satisfactory change? And how can people move beyond this apparent deadlock in workplaces and other institutions and really go forward? This paper looks at some of the reasons why issues about work‐personal life integration have become so pressing and then reflects on implications for working towards more fundamental changes at many different levels. It highlights sticking points holding back change and argues that these could be developed into new levers for change by emphasising the need to rethink and question many deeply held – but outdated – assumptions about working practices, families, culture and personal lives.

Evolutions and Approaches to Equitable Divisions of Paid Work and Care in Three European Countries: a Multi-level Challenge

Despite growing numbers of women in the labour force, and varying national policies and workplace policies developed to support the reconciliation of paid work and family life, progress towards gender equity remains uneven and painfully slow across Europe. In this chapter we define gender equity in terms of a fair distribution of paid and unpaid work and of both opportunities and constraints, between men and women (Rapoport & Rapoport, 1971, 1975).1 We conceptualise progress (or lack of it) towards gender equity as part of an evolutionary process of change that takes place at many levels and proceeds in different ways and at different rates across national contexts. National policies are an essential part of the process but are not sufficient. Related changes are needed at individual, relational, workplace and wider societal levels. At the workplace level there is now much evidence that policies alone do not bring about changes in structures, cultures and practices needed to enable equitable sharing of paid work and care among men and women (Brandth & Kvande, 2001, 2002; Crompton, 1999; Haas & Hwang, 1995; Lewis, 1997, 2001; Rapoport et al., 2002). At the individual and relational levels, research tends to focus on the division of domestic labour (see Oakley, 1974 for an early example), but less attention has been paid to the evolutionary and multi-level process of reciprocal change between men and women.