ebook img

Work-life balance among solo-living managers and professionals PDF

231 Pages·2015·2.04 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Work-life balance among solo-living managers and professionals

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

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.