Everybody’s Workin’ on the Weekends
by Sima Matthes (New York City)
In one of my colleague’s cubicles, there a cartoon by the brilliant and irreverent Scott Adams hanging over the desk. The cartoon has his protagonist, Dilbert, remarking to the company’s blood drive sponsor “You’ve already taken everything I have…” and the sponsor saying “There’s a six pint minimum,” or something like that.
Undoubtedly, we’ve all felt that we’ve given everything to our company, our co-workers, and our bosses at one time or another — but at least we had the weekends to look forward to. In Tammy Erickson’s recent article on the Harvard Business Publications web page, she asked the audacious and provocative question of whether we even need weekends. Her point is that in this age of telecommuting and what she calls “asynchronous” work, where we can work anywhere, at anytime, weekends as they currently are defined may not be as necessary as once thought. “I’d like to see companies re-think the idea of a pre-set “week day” and a “weekend” and look instead at which jobs actually need synchronous activity with what frequency. If the job doesn’t require it, why not let the worker decide his or her own schedule?”
Ideally, the sort of asynchrony Professor Erickson describes leads to more time with our families without a subsequent loss in status, pay or benefits. The concern, as articulated in a related article by Paul Michelman, is that the line between our “two distinct existences—one focused on home and the other focused on work” will be erased entirely.
As one who has witnessed the slow descent into “Crackberry-headedness” of many of my friends and colleagues, I am tempted to side with Prof. Michelman. I worry that those who can’t get through a family dinner without checking their voicemails are likely to celebrate the fact that now they never need to stop working, and that the relationships that are, ultimately, of the least consequence, will get the most attention.
Another perspective on the ubiquitous work/life balance issue, again from the Harvard Business Review, but this one from Stew Friedman. He wrote: “It’s a painful, pressing issue for many professionals. But “balance” is the wrong metaphor, because it implies tradeoffs: you’ve got to give up one or more parts of your life to have success in another. Instead, we’ll focus on achieving “four-way wins.” This requires that you integrate the four different parts of life — work, home, community, and self. You must generate the support you need from the key people around you. That’s how you can make sustainable change in how, when and where you get things done. In doing so, life becomes better for you and for your most important people.”
The “how” appears in his book Total Leadership: Be a Better Leader, Have a Richer Life but, of course, it’s not as simple as that. Even those with low-level jobs are leaders, and even those at the bottom echelons struggle with this issue. In a way, because they are making less and have fewer additional perks and resources, balance is a greater issue.
Are we, as females at the top of our fields, willing and able to make the changes that will create the balance that we require so that it’s available for those we lead? Is the solution, as Prof. Erickson suggests, eliminating weekends? Or is it simply about knowing when to clock out and go home?
The discussion continues, and remains open for your input. How do you make this work in your life, and for your staff? Do you require them to keep the same crazy schedule you keep, or do you give them the flexibility they require to raise their families and care for their parents? Do you take actual weekends off, or do you work asynchronously? And what’s the minimum number of pints you donate at your company?