Work-life balance among solo-living managers and professionals

231 Pages·2015·2.04 MB·English

Work-life balance among solo-living managers and
professionals: Exploring dynamics of structure, culture
and agency

Krystal Wilkinson

Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Leeds, Leeds University Business School
September 2014

1
The candidate confirms that the work submitted is her own and that appropriate credit has
been given where reference has been made to the work of others.

This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no
quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement.

© 2014 The University of Leeds and Krystal Wilkinson

2
Acknowledgements

Primarily, I would like to thank Jean Gardiner and Professor Jennifer Tomlinson, my two
excellent supervisors at Leeds University Business School, for their support and guidance
throughout the research process. I would also like to thank Leeds University, for giving me the
opportunity to undertake the doctoral study, and for all of the training and resources provided.
Finally, I would like to thank my father, Brian Wilkinson, for his unwavering love, support and
tolerance.

3
Abstract

One result of substantial demographic and social change in the UK in recent decades has been
a marked increase in the proportion of the population that live alone – including amongst the
working-age population. Whilst the trend has often been linked to arguments about increased
freedom and choice in modern society, and a second demographic transition (Lesthaeghe &
vande Kaa, 1986), the possible influence of structures and cultures should not be overlooked,
nor the experiences of solo-living individuals assumed to be without problems or constraint.
Of particular interest in this thesis is the influence of the modern labour market and
organisations which can be ‘greedy’ (Coser, 1974) when it comes to employee time and
energy. Whilst there is a considerable body of knowledge on the work-life interface, research
has focused almost entirely on employees in family households (Casper et al, 2007a), meaning
very little is known about the situation for those who live alone.

This thesis is based on the work-life attitudes and experiences of 36 young managers and
professionals who live alone, and adopts a critical realist approach to analysing the interplay of
structure, culture and agency over time (Archer, 1996). Following the identification of a range
of work-life balance issues experienced by participants, and variation in levels of work-life
satisfaction on the basis of participant gender and age, two theoretical lenses are used to
explore the data. Firstly, distributive justice theory is used to understand variations in
participant perceptions of the fairness of work-life balance support allocation in their
organisations, and personal sense of entitlement to support. Secondly, broader elements of
participant work-life experience are explored via the lens of individualisation theory, as
conceptualised by Beck (1992) and Beck & Beck-Gernsheim (2002).

The overall thesis is that young solo-living managers and professionals are both enabled and
constrained by their structural and cultural environment. Whilst these individuals are in a
relatively privileged position when it comes to career progression, they experience a number
of constraints to the achievement of work-life balance. Whether participants are satisfied with
their work-life experience or dissatisfied, there is little evidence of challenge to the
structural/cultural environment – which is explained via the inclusion in a temporally
embedded conceptualisation of agency (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998) the issue of risk, an
issue that is central to something here termed ‘gendered individualisation’.

4
Contents
List of abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 7
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8
2. Literature Review (part one): Solo-living and work-life balance ........................................ 12
2.1. Solo-living .................................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1. Conceptualising solo-living.................................................................................. 12
2.1.2. Research on solo-living ....................................................................................... 14
2.2. The work-life interface ................................................................................................ 17
2.2.1. Introduction, main concepts ............................................................................... 17
2.2.2. The development of the work-life balance concept ........................................... 18
2.2.3. Ongoing work-life and work-family conflation and issues of distributive justice20
2.2.4. Working hours, work intensification and boundary blurring ............................. 28
3. Literature Review (part two): The influence of structure, culture and agency on solo-living
employee work-life balance ................................................................................................ 33
3.1. Structure/culture and agency seen as a dualism ........................................................ 36
3.2. Challenging the either/or view on structure, culture and agency .............................. 41
3.3. Individualisation .......................................................................................................... 48
3.3.1. Individualisation and risk .................................................................................... 49
3.3.2. Critiques .............................................................................................................. 54
3.3.3. Individualisation and solo-living employees ....................................................... 60
3.4. Conclusion and research questions ............................................................................ 62
4. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 65
4.1. Philosophical position ................................................................................................. 65
4.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 67
4.3. Research method: An adaptation of the Biographical Narrative Interpretative
Method (BNIM) ........................................................................................................... 68
4.3.1. Evaluating ‘pure’ BNIM ....................................................................................... 72
4.3.2. The BNIM-inspired method ................................................................................ 75
4.4. Sample ......................................................................................................................... 78
4.5. Data analysis ............................................................................................................... 82
4.6. Ethics ........................................................................................................................... 85
4.7. Outline of results chapters (5, 6 and 7) ...................................................................... 86
5. Work-life balance issues experienced by managers and professionals who live alone ..... 88
5.1. Evidence of established work-life balance issues ....................................................... 89
5.1.1. Working hours ..................................................................................................... 89
5
5.1.2. Boundary blurring ............................................................................................... 96
5.1.3. Work-life balance conceptualisation .................................................................. 99
5.2. Emerging work-life balance issues ............................................................................ 104
5.2.1. Perceptions about non-work time .................................................................... 104
5.2.2. Lack of support .................................................................................................. 108
5.2.3. Heightened vulnerability ................................................................................... 111
5.2.4. Perceptions about legitimacy ........................................................................... 113
5.2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................... 114
5.3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 115
6. Perceptions of fairness in relation to work-life balance policy and practice .................... 117
6.1. Needs-based DJR ....................................................................................................... 118
6.1.1. Perceptions of organisations using a needs-based DJR .................................... 118
6.1.2. Perceptions of fairness: Needs-based DJR ........................................................ 122
6.2. Equality-based DJR .................................................................................................... 128
6.2.1. Perceptions of organisations using an equality-based DJR............................... 128
6.2.2. Perceptions of fairness: Equality-based DJR ..................................................... 132
6.3. Equity-based DJR ....................................................................................................... 133
6.3.1. Perceptions of organisations using an equity-based DJR ................................. 134
6.3.2. Perceptions of fairness: Equity-based DJR ........................................................ 136
6.4. Participant perceptions of the fairness of their own work-life balance situation .... 139
6.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 142
7. Individualisation and gender ............................................................................................. 145
7.1. Dominant social institutions ..................................................................................... 146
7.1.1. Primacy of the labour market ........................................................................... 146
7.1.2. Dis-embedding from other institutions ............................................................ 151
7.2. An emphasis on a ‘duty to oneself’? ......................................................................... 154
7.3. Narratives of choice and personal responsibility ...................................................... 157
7.3.1. Discussions of work-life histories and current work-life situation ................... 158
7.3.2. Discussions of living alone ................................................................................ 162
7.4. Awareness of risk ...................................................................................................... 164
7.4.1. Perceived risks .................................................................................................. 164
7.4.2 Mitigating risks .................................................................................................. 168
7.5. Conclusion: Gendered individualisation ................................................................... 170
8. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 174
8.1. The structural and cultural environment that precedes agency .............................. 175
6
8.2. Male participants and females aged 24-34: iterative agency ................................... 176
8.3. Female participants aged 35-44: reflexivity, projectivity, practical evaluation and risk
.................................................................................................................................. 178
8.4. Changing the structural and cultural environment .................................................. 179
9. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 183
9.1. Contributions ............................................................................................................ 184
9.2. Implications for practice ........................................................................................... 186
9.3. Strengths, limitations and further research .............................................................. 189
9.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 191
References ................................................................................................................................ 193
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 212
Appendix 1: Participant Information Sheet .......................................................................... 213
Appendix 2: Participant Consent Form ................................................................................. 215
Appendix 3: Participant Data Sheet ...................................................................................... 216
Appendix 4: Interview Schedule ........................................................................................... 218
Appendix 5: Participant profile ............................................................................................. 221
Appendix 6: Data Analysis Codes .......................................................................................... 224
Appendix 7: Data Analysis Case Example .............................................................................. 226
Appendix 8: Participant Hours .............................................................................................. 231

List of tables
Table 1: Summary of research sample…………………………………………………………………………………….82

Table 2: Participant contractual and estimated actual weekly working hours………………………..91

List of abbreviations
DJR Distributive Justice Rule
BNIM Biographical Narrative Interpretive Method
SQUIN Single Question Designed to Induce Narrative

7
1. Introduction

The single-person household has been identified as the fastest growing household type in
modern society throughout most of the developed world (Sorrentino, 1990). Solo-living can be
defined in a number of ways, which will be discussed in the next chapter, but for the purpose
of this study, it refers to one person living alone, or a person who does not live with a partner
or family member, and does not share a living/sitting room or at least one meal a day with
another resident (Census, 2001). Whilst some explanation for the growing prominence of
solo-living comes from the ageing population, the trend is also evident in the working-age
population. The latter has been linked to a number of economic and social trends – including
lower levels of marriage, marriage occurring later in life, reduced fertility levels, and increased
levels of divorce – that have resulted in more diverse lifestyles and an increase in both the
total number of households, and the level of transitions from one type of household to
another (Odgen & Hall, 2004).

Some see the growing prominence of solo-living in a positive light, signalling increased
freedom for individuals to live their lives in a way that they choose. For example, solo-living
was cited as the first of the ‘ten ideas that are changing life’ in a 2012 The Time Magazine
cover in the US, with the author sociologist Eric Klinenberg drawing on his publication Going
Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone, to depict the living situation
as a platform for self-realisation, freedom, and social engagement. From this perspective,
solo-living can be seen to be part of a wider transition in society towards more self-
actualisation oriented lives, as in the notion of a second demographic transition (Lesthaeghe &
vande Kaa, 1986). This theory links reduced fertility and a range of new living arrangements to
not only changing socio-economic conditions and/or rising female employment, but to the
expression of secular and anti-authoritarian sentiments by better educated individuals and a
‘Maslowian preference drift’ (Lesthaeghe, 2010:3) – suggesting that people have moved from
a preoccupation with material needs (subsistence, shelter, physical and economic security) to
high-order, non-material needs, including self-actualisation.

It is possible to see the trend in a different light however, with solo-living not necessarily the
product of individual choice, but rather the product of circumstance and/or the structural and
cultural environment in which individuals are situated. This speaks to a key debate in
sociological enquiry: the relative significance of agency, structure and culture in explaining
social phenomena. The central concepts and the nature of their relationship will be explored
in the literature review, but put very simply, agency refers to the capacity of individuals to
8
make their own independent choices, whilst structure and culture refer to the recurrent
patterned arrangements in society that enable and/or constrain this choice.

A theory that engages with issues of structure, culture and agency – and that has been cited in
connection with some of the demographic and social trends noted above – is individualisation
theory. Whilst a number of different conceptualisations of individualisation have been put
forward by the key theorists in the field (including Ulrich Beck; Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim;
Anthony Giddens; Scott Lash and Zigmund Bauman), a central tenet is that individuals in late
modernity are dis-embedded from the social institutions that tended to prescribe a certain life
course at the time of simple modernity, these being the nuclear family, class, religion, and local
community. This means that each individual is granted more freedom to decide their own
path in life. According to Beck (1992) and Beck & Beck-Gernsheim’s (2002) conceptualisation
of individualisation however, individuals are simultaneously re-embedded in a newly
prominent social institution – the labour market. Whilst individuals enjoy a certain freedom
over their life course, they are required to navigate the structures and cultures of the labour
market, and must take responsibility for the decisions that they make. This would suggest that
the labour market/world of work is an important factor to consider when seeking an
understanding of the experiences of solo-living individuals of working age.

One argument that has been made in relation to the world of work is that there is an increase
in the prevalence of ‘greedy organisations’ (Coser, 1974) in modern society – organisations
which demand considerable time and energy investment from their employees (Allan et al.
1999; Appelbaum et al., 2000; Burchielli et al. 2008; Green, 2001; Schor, 1992). It has been said
that individuals are increasingly required to embody the ‘ideal worker’ (Acker, 1990) in order
to be successful – someone with ‘full-time availability…a strong work orientation and no
responsibilities in life other than the ones required by the organization… [thus able to] go the
extra mile… for example by working more than full-time and/or by taking on extra
responsibilities and tasks’ (Mescher et al. 2010: 24). It is possible that an increase in solo-
living could be linked to such work requirements, if individuals have less time outside of work
to build and maintain the personal relationships required for successful cohabitation.

When it comes to considering the relationship between employment and other areas of
individuals’ lives, research and policy interest falls under the broad banner of ‘work-life
balance’ – although there are considerable conceptual debates around this term which will be
explored in the next chapter. Work-life balance can be broadly defined as a situation in which
‘an individual [has] sufficient control and autonomy over where, when and how they work to
9
enable them to fulfil their responsibilities both inside and outside paid work’ (Visser &
Williams, 2006: 14). The issue at the heart of this thesis is that despite the changes in the
household profile of the UK population, and specifically the rise in solo-living amongst the
working-age population, work-life balance research and interest is still focused almost entirely
on the experience of employees who live in traditional family households – with cohabiting
partners and children (Casper et al. 2007a). This means we know very little about work-life
balance for those who live alone.

This thesis aims to address this omission, and also to explore some of the issues raised above.
Via biographical narrative interviewing, it explores the work-life balance experiences of a
group of 36 young (24-44 year old) managerial and professional employees who live alone and
do not have children. It highlights a number of work-life balance issues that are experienced
by the sample, including four issues of specific relevance to solo-living employees that have
not previously been identified in the literature.

The thesis also explores participant attitudes towards the work-life balance provisions
available in their organisation and how work-life balance is conceptualised in their working
environment. A key issue here is perceptions of fairness. If organisations conceptualise work-
life balance in a similar way to much of the research – conflating work-life balance with work-
family balance – then solo-living employees might feel this is unfair, leading to a backlash
(Flynn, 1996; Korabik & Warner, 2009; Kossek & Van Dyne, 2008; Young, 1999). Distributive
justice theory is used to explore such issues, which refers to how individuals make judgements
about the fairness of resource allocation. Attention is paid to the prevalence of each of the
main distributive justice rules (DJRs) that have been identified in the literature (Deutsch,
1975): resource allocation on the basis of equality (everyone should get the same), equity
(those who put more in should get more out), or need (those who most need the resource
should have a greater share). It is argued that the national legislative framework has an
influence on the DJRs used by both organisations and also solo-living participants when
considering work-life balance support allocation.

Throughout the thesis, attention is paid to the interaction of agency, structure and culture
when it comes to the work-life experiences of the group of solo-living managers and
professionals. Individualisation theory proves to be a useful explanatory framework for
understanding experiences, but an argument is made that individualisation is experienced
differently on the basis of participant gender and age, with male and younger female
participants emphasising the positive freedoms associated with their work and life situation;
10