Description
HRM Study on Career and Personal Outcomes and the Meaning of Career Success Among Part-Time Professionals in Organizations:- An engagement or betrothal is a promise to marry, and also the period of time between proposal and marriage – which may be lengthy or trivial. During this period, a couple is said to be betrothed, affianced, engaged to be married, or simply engaged. Future brides and grooms may be called the betrothed, a wife-to-be or husband-to-be, fiancée or fiancé, respectively (from the French word fiancer). The duration of the courtship varies vastly.
HRM Study on Career and Personal Outcomes and the Meaning of Career Success among Part-Time Professionals in Organizations
1
Over recent decades, the professional workforce and family structures have dramatically changed. For example, the dual earner family is now the modal American family (Barnett, 2001). Only 17% of families comprise a male breadwinner and a stay-at-home wife (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2004). According to the most recent National Survey of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, Prottas, 2002), the demographic occupational profile of the professional and managerial workforce in the U.S. has also dramatically changed. In 2002, women held 39% of professional and managerial jobs, compared to 24% in 1977. Work hours and demands are rising on the job and there is less time to devote to family or other personal life commitments. Over the past twenty-five years between 1977 and 2002, the total work hours of all dual-earner couples with children under 18 years at home increased an average of an additional ten hours per week- from 81 to 91 hours (Bond et al., 2002). A recent national survey on overwork in America indicates that nearly half (44%) of the U.S. workforce agreed they experienced being overworked in their jobs in the past month (Galinsky, Bond, Kim, Backon, Brownfield, Sakai, 2005). Another current report based on the NSCW survey found that two thirds of employed parents believe they don't have enough time with their children (67%) (Galinsky, Bond & Hill, 2004). Over half of all employees participating in the NSCW survey said they don't have enough time for their spouses (63%) or themselves (55%). Although these trends are important for all employee groups, professionals are a key labor market group that faces unique challenges in managing work and personal life demands. Many professionals encounter growing organizational pressures to increase workload and work hours (Gerson & Jacobs, 2004). For most professionals, full time work doesn't mean 40 hours
a week. More typically, a full time professional is expected to work 50, 60, or even seventy hours per week. For individuals who seek to advance in their careers, the hours they work can be
2
seen as a symbol of career commitment. Some may fear that placing limits on work hours or loads is likely to be negatively construed by customers, bosses, or co-workers. Many professionals are also in dual career households, where it's hard to be a parent, an elder caregiver, or "have a life" when work involves such long hours. Yet growing numbers of professionals are taking actions to create or adapt jobs in order to achieve the kind of work and family lives they want over their careers. They are negotiating to work less, to reduce their work loads with a proportionate reduction in pay. In recent years there has been considerable attention given to examining this fairly new phenomenon among professionals, and it has been called reduced-load work, part-time, "new concept part-time" and customized work by different authors (Barnett & Gareis, 2000; Corwin, Lawrence & Frost, 2001; Epstein, Seron, Oglensky & Saute; Lee, Engler& Wright, 2002; Hill, Martinson, Ferris & Baker, 2004; MacDermid, Lee, Buck & Williams, 2001; Meiksins & Whalley, 2002). A body of research is developing that begins to explain why these new work forms are emerging, how they are working out and under what circumstances they result in positive outcomes for the individuals, work units, and organizations concerned. However, little research has explicitly focused on how choosing to work less actually affects individuals, their careers and their lives over time. And there has been no attention paid to changing conceptions of career success which we would expect to accompany new ways of working among professionals wanting to work less for periods of time in their careers. The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to filling this gap by examining the personal, career and family outcomes of part-time professionals and by exploring their conceptions of career success in the context of working on a part-time basis to accommodate personal or family commitments.
3
Of course there is a well-established stream of research on the inter-relationships between work and non-work life in general. However, empirical studies have tended to focus on one of the following issues: 1) determining the direction and type of influence of one domain on the other, e.g. compensation, spillover, independence (Lee & Kanungo, 1984); 2) examination of predictors and outcomes of work-family conflict (e.g. Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985); or 3) identifying implications of participation in multiple roles based on a scarcity or expansionist perspective (Marks, 1977; Rothbard, 2001). Although the theoretical literature has also suggested viable constructs for investigation like work-life integration (Kossek, Noe & DeMarr, 1999), work-family balance or facilitation (Frone, 2003), and a balanced life (Gallos, 1989), to date there has been little testing of the validity of such formulations (Aryee, Srinivas & Tan, 2005). Furthermore, there has been little exploratory qualitative research to surface individuals' actual conceptions of career success (Greenhaus, 2003; Heslin, 2005). Yet one of the weaknesses of career theory in general, according to Sturges (1999), is the lack of an adequate and holistic conceptualization of career success from the perspective of the individual. A deeper understanding and a more complete picture of career success can be provided by a qualitative exploration of what individuals themselves define as salient or prevalent in their own conceptions of career success. Literature suggests that personal
conceptions of career success for some individuals may be simultaneously associated with both internal and external criteria (Poole et. al, 1993). There has been a long distinction in the career success literature about objective and subjective career success; dating back to the initial theoretical distinction provided by Hughes (1937, 1958). Based on Hughes' framework, objective career success has been defined by
4
observable and measurable criteria, such as pay, promotion, or status. Subjective career success, on the other hand, has been defined by an individual's reactions to unfolding career experiences. In the literature, traditional conceptions of career success were premised on the notion of linear hierarchical career progression in a competitive environment. In more than two thirds of career studies published in major journals between 1980 and 1994, career success was measured by objective measures such as salary, rank or promotion (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). On the other hand; a number of studies (Kofodimos, 1993; Powell and Mainiero, 1999; Sturges, 1999) have found that defining career success in terms of purely external and objective terms such as pay and position is not congruent with what many managers and professionals (especially women) feel about their own career success. Therefore; it is clear that there is a need for more holistic and multidimensional conceptions and definitions of career success, where the interplay between work, family, life, significant others, and various life stages is acknowledged. Overview of Research Studies The research findings reported here are based on two qualitative studies focused on the experiences of professionals and managers in reduced-load work arrangements conducted in 1996-98 and 2002-03. In Study 1 83 cases of reduced-load work were examined in a variety of kinds of jobs in 43 companies in the U.S. and Canada. As 4 of these cases involved job sharing, there were actually 87 participants interviewed about their work arrangements and their careers, family and personal lives. Approximately 6 years later in Study 2 we were able to do a followup interview with 81 of the original 87 participants in order to find out how their careers and lives had evolved over time. In the original study participants were recruited using personal contacts with human resources and work-life managers, cold calls to employers and direct mail
5
solicitations to members of professional organizations (e.g. the Association of Part-Time Professionals). As this was an exploratory study of a new phenomenon, we were seeking a heterogeneous sample to support theory generation as opposed to hypothesis testing. We did not pursue more than 3 cases in any one company, and we tried to include cases that represented individuals pursuing working less for a variety of different reasons and in many different industries. We also sought and achieved having men comprise at least 10% of the sample, given estimates of their representing 10-20% of all professionals/managers in organizations working voluntarily on a reduced-load basis (Catalyst, 1997). The aim was to include individuals in a wide range of types of jobs and family situations, as well as those with a variety of experiences negotiating and maintaining part-time arrangements. In Study 2 conducted 2002-03, we contacted the original participants through our records of their personal coordinates collected for purposes of providing an Executive Feedback Report on findings after Study 1. Eighty-one agreed to be interviewed approximately 6 years after the original interview. In Study 1 working on a reduced-load basis was defined as working less than full-time and being paid proportionately. The lowest percentage of full-time being worked in the sample was 50%, and the highest was 90%. The most typical percentage was either 60% or 80%, the equivalent of 3 or 4 days a week. The sample consisted of 87 professionals and managers in a variety of different kinds of companies (e.g., financial, manufacturing, natural resources, and telecommunications) in 43 different corporations in the U.S. and Canada. Forty-five percent (45%) worked in individual contributor roles and are referred to here as "professionals;" and 55% were managers with at least 3 direct reports. Professionals were most likely to work in the areas of Finance, Human Resources and Corporate Communications, or Research & Development. However, 25% were in Information Systems, Production/Operations, and
6
Marketing. Although some of them had the title of "Manager" and might supervise a secretary or administrative assistant, they did not have responsibility for a group of direct reports. Some examples of job titles were:
Project Director
Product Development Chemist
V.P., Finance Director of Contracts V.P., Info. Systems
Principal Research Scientist Organizational Effectiveness Manager Software Engineer Mgr., International Bus. Development
There were three types of managerial jobs in the sample. Almost half (48%) were managing professionals in a support function. Their direct reports were competent, seasoned professionals needing little direct supervision or coaching (e.g. Director of Finance of Vice President, Human Resources). Thirty-nine percent of the managers were considered "line" managers in that they were in functional areas linked directly to production and operations, or delivery of product/services to customers (e.g. Manager, Export Operations, Sales Manager, Branch Manager). These managers described their jobs primarily as managing their direct reports, who were the ones actually doing the work itself. More than half and sometimes virtually all of their time was spent selecting, training, coaching, mentoring, monitoring, and assessing those they were responsible for, as well as organizing and coordinating the work itself. They were also held accountable for financial or other deliverables on a monthly or quarterly basis, and they operated under critical time deadlines on a regular basis. The final kind of management position involved project managers (13%) who operated typically as matrix managers rather than traditional hierarchical managers (e.g. Software Development). The members of their project teams were all professionals and needed minimal guidance and
7
direction. Their work involved a great deal of lateral interface across different areas, seeking consultation and gaining cooperation on the basis of their expertise and interpersonal skills rather than their rank. In Study 2, of the 81 participants interviewed in the follow-up study, 47% were still working on a reduced-load basis, although 13.5% were self-employed; 38% were working fulltime; and 15% were staying at home temporarily or retired. Of those employed in organizations, 65% were with the same employers as in Study 1, and 55% of them were in managerial roles with supervisory responsibilities. In Study 1 10% of the sample was male, and in Study 2 11% was male, because 5 of the 6 participants not willing to be interviewed the second time were female. Table 1 provides demographic information about the samples at the two different points in time. -----------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 About Here -----------------------------------------------In Study 1 confidential, semi-structured interviews, which were audio-taped and then transcribed verbatim, focused on learning about how reduced-load arrangements were negotiated and sustained and under what kinds of terms, as well as how they were working out from a personal, family and organizational perspective. For each case of reduced-load work, interviews were conducted with not only the target individual working less, but 4 other stakeholders (boss, co-worker, HR representative, and spouse/partner), which enabled the interviewers to get a sense of the success of the arrangements from multiple perspectives. After reviewing all interviews completed in a case, the interviewers gave each case a "global success" rating on a scale of 1 to
8
9, with 7-9 indicating a high level of success, 5-6 a moderate level of success and 1-4 a low level of success. In Study 2 only target individuals who had worked on a reduced-load basis in the earlier study were interviewed. The focus was on what had happened in the intervening period of time and what changes and/or life events had occurred, as well as the current status of their careers and personal and family lives. In addition, each participant was asked to complete a Timeline on 3 dimensions (Career, Family, and Personal) from the time of the first interview to the time of the second, indicating "how well things were working" with 7 indicating "Things working very well" and 1 indicating "Things not working well." These charts yielded self-assessments of outcomes on each of the 3 dimensions at the time of Study 1 and Study 2: Career SelfAssessment Time 1 and Time 2, Family Self-Assessment Time 1 and Time 2, and Personal Life Assessment Time 1 and Time 2. Finally, in Study 2 each Interviewer gave an overall Congruence rating of the individual he or she interviewed after an in-depth analysis of the interview data. This Congruence rating is meant to capture to what extent the participant was living the life he or she desired. So on a scale of 1 to 7, those rated highest (7) were judged by the Interviewers as having the greatest consistency between their dreams or ideals and their actual lives, that is how they orchestrated and calibrated their involvement in work, family and other domains.
Career & Personal Life Outcomes Given that working less than full-time is a deviant pattern for professionals and managers in North America, we were curious about just how successful our sample would be in their careers and how satisfied they would be with the time gained and what they did with it as a result
9
of working on a reduced-load basis. First we examine what we learned from our data in Study 1 about the career and personal life outcomes of these individuals, by using conventional measures of success and listening to boss's assessments of "potential." Secondly, we look at participants' views of the outcomes, in terms of their own personal lives as well as their relationships with children and/or other family members. Finally, we look at Interviewers' assessments of the "global success" of the reduced-load arrangements, which are based on the views of all stakeholders interviewed in each case. At Time 2 we consider how participants' careers fared according to traditional objective criteria like salary and number of promotions received, as well as participants' self-assessments of how well things were going in their careers at Time 2, as well as in comparison with Time 1. We also examine their self-assessments of how things were going in their family and personal lives at Time 1 and Time 2. Finally we look at the Time 2 Interviewers' assessments of the Congruence of participants' actual lives with their desired lives, in terms of their level of involvement in career, family, and other life domains.
Time 1 Outcomes Using conventional measures of career success, we were surprised to find in our interviews from 1996 to 1998 that 35% of the sample had already been promoted while working on a reduced-load basis, even though the mean number of years working reduced load was 4.3. In addition, another third of the sample were expected by their bosses to be promoted within the next year. Reduced-load work arrangements were not necessarily a barrier to career advancement. Furthermore, an anonymous survey of the direct reports of the managerial participants (55% of the sample), indicated that they rated their reduced-load managers' effectiveness on average at 7.2 on a scale from 1 to 9.
10
From a personal perspective participants reported gaining an average of 18 hours per week to spend on their family or other priorities as a result of working on a reduced-load basis. Ninety percent reported positive effects of working less on their children - better relationships and more time to be together. Ninety-one percent said they were happier and more satisfied with the balance between home and work. As for the Interviewers' global rating of the success of the reduced-load arrangements, our criteria were multi-faceted and stringent, given that we had data from 5 different stakeholders per case, as mentioned above. First and foremost we looked at how happy the participants were with working less from a personal point of view - how they felt about their careers and the price they were paying for the time gained and whether they felt they were getting the extra time they wanted for their personal and family lives. Second, we looked at the outcomes from an organizational perspective. Were there costs in performance or productivity in the work unit; did others in the group have to "pick up the slack" creating an unfair overload situation. Third, we looked at how the family was faring to see whether their were positive outcomes for the overall quality of family life, for children, or for the couple relationship. Then we also looked for consistency across stakeholder interviews in reporting positive consequences of the reduced-load arrangements. Interviewers rated each case, taking into consideration all accumulated data from different sources. On as scale of 1 to 9, a 1 indicated consistently negative outcomes reported across stakeholders, and a 9 indicated consistently positive outcomes. Each success rating was checked for validity by another member of the research team. After the ratings were completed, 3 groups were created: high, moderate, and low. Most of the cases (62%) were in the high success group, 31% in the moderate success group, and 7% in the low success group.
11
Time 2 Outcomes At Time 2 the 81 participants were no longer all in reduced-load positions. Forty-seven (47%) percent were still working less than full-time, whereas 38% had returned to full-time. Fifteen percent (15%) were staying home, mostly to spend time with their children, but 2 had retired and 1 was temporarily unemployed. Participants experienced many changes and challenges during the period between the two interviews; some were work-related and some had to do with family and personal life. Certain changes came about as a result of events totally out of their control, such as a company being acquired or going through downsizing, or an illness in the family. Others were self-initiated, or came about because of a spouse's decision, for example, to change jobs. Major life events experienced by at least a third of the sample included: birth or adoption of a child, serious illness or death of a close friend or relative, organizational downsizing, and either a child with a serious illness or learning problem or personal serious illness. In examining how successful participants were in all aspects of their lives, we looked at their own subjective point of view, according to their personal goals, as well as at conventional objective measures of career success, like upward mobility and salary increases. Overall we found that despite experiencing many changes and challenges over 6 years, most of the participants were doing quite well, as assessed by both subjective and objective measures of outcomes. Employed participants as a whole had an average rate of increase in fulltime equivalent salary of 38% over 6 years, and the mean salaries of the full-time versus part-
12
time participants were virtually the same ($111,725 and $111,927 USD) after adjusting the latter for the degree of reduced load. Over 6 years the group overall had received 65 promotions or clear increases in responsibility or status through a career move outside their former organization, with 44 individuals receiving at least 1 and 17 receiving 2 or more. These gains were made in spite of the fact that the average number of years the participants had spent working on a reduced-load basis was 8. Subjective measures of success provided by the Interviewer and self-assessment ratings were also quite positive, as shown in Figure 1 below. The Interviewers rated participants on the basis of how congruent their current lives were with their desired lives, on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 indicating the greatest congruence or consistency. Overall, the average rating was 5.3, with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 7. As shown below, half of the sample received a rating greater than 6, and only 11% received a rating less than 4. The self-assessment ratings were calculated on the basis of a Timeline Exercise on 3 dimensions (career, family, personal) covering the time from the 1st interview to the 2nd. ----------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 About Here ----------------------------------------------------Participants were asked to draw a line to indicate how their career, personal and family lives were working out, as shown below in Figure 2. The horizontal axis was time, and the vertical axis was how well things were working. The point where each line (career, family, and personal) ended at the time of the 2nd interview was interpreted as the individual's assessment of how things were going on a scale of 1 to 7. Close to 50% of the sample in each of the three
13
domains indicated things were going very well (>6), and less than 20% of the sample in each of the domains indicated things were not going well (
HRM Study on Career and Personal Outcomes and the Meaning of Career Success Among Part-Time Professionals in Organizations:- An engagement or betrothal is a promise to marry, and also the period of time between proposal and marriage – which may be lengthy or trivial. During this period, a couple is said to be betrothed, affianced, engaged to be married, or simply engaged. Future brides and grooms may be called the betrothed, a wife-to-be or husband-to-be, fiancée or fiancé, respectively (from the French word fiancer). The duration of the courtship varies vastly.
HRM Study on Career and Personal Outcomes and the Meaning of Career Success among Part-Time Professionals in Organizations
1
Over recent decades, the professional workforce and family structures have dramatically changed. For example, the dual earner family is now the modal American family (Barnett, 2001). Only 17% of families comprise a male breadwinner and a stay-at-home wife (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2004). According to the most recent National Survey of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) (Bond, Thompson, Galinsky, Prottas, 2002), the demographic occupational profile of the professional and managerial workforce in the U.S. has also dramatically changed. In 2002, women held 39% of professional and managerial jobs, compared to 24% in 1977. Work hours and demands are rising on the job and there is less time to devote to family or other personal life commitments. Over the past twenty-five years between 1977 and 2002, the total work hours of all dual-earner couples with children under 18 years at home increased an average of an additional ten hours per week- from 81 to 91 hours (Bond et al., 2002). A recent national survey on overwork in America indicates that nearly half (44%) of the U.S. workforce agreed they experienced being overworked in their jobs in the past month (Galinsky, Bond, Kim, Backon, Brownfield, Sakai, 2005). Another current report based on the NSCW survey found that two thirds of employed parents believe they don't have enough time with their children (67%) (Galinsky, Bond & Hill, 2004). Over half of all employees participating in the NSCW survey said they don't have enough time for their spouses (63%) or themselves (55%). Although these trends are important for all employee groups, professionals are a key labor market group that faces unique challenges in managing work and personal life demands. Many professionals encounter growing organizational pressures to increase workload and work hours (Gerson & Jacobs, 2004). For most professionals, full time work doesn't mean 40 hours
a week. More typically, a full time professional is expected to work 50, 60, or even seventy hours per week. For individuals who seek to advance in their careers, the hours they work can be
2
seen as a symbol of career commitment. Some may fear that placing limits on work hours or loads is likely to be negatively construed by customers, bosses, or co-workers. Many professionals are also in dual career households, where it's hard to be a parent, an elder caregiver, or "have a life" when work involves such long hours. Yet growing numbers of professionals are taking actions to create or adapt jobs in order to achieve the kind of work and family lives they want over their careers. They are negotiating to work less, to reduce their work loads with a proportionate reduction in pay. In recent years there has been considerable attention given to examining this fairly new phenomenon among professionals, and it has been called reduced-load work, part-time, "new concept part-time" and customized work by different authors (Barnett & Gareis, 2000; Corwin, Lawrence & Frost, 2001; Epstein, Seron, Oglensky & Saute; Lee, Engler& Wright, 2002; Hill, Martinson, Ferris & Baker, 2004; MacDermid, Lee, Buck & Williams, 2001; Meiksins & Whalley, 2002). A body of research is developing that begins to explain why these new work forms are emerging, how they are working out and under what circumstances they result in positive outcomes for the individuals, work units, and organizations concerned. However, little research has explicitly focused on how choosing to work less actually affects individuals, their careers and their lives over time. And there has been no attention paid to changing conceptions of career success which we would expect to accompany new ways of working among professionals wanting to work less for periods of time in their careers. The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to filling this gap by examining the personal, career and family outcomes of part-time professionals and by exploring their conceptions of career success in the context of working on a part-time basis to accommodate personal or family commitments.
3
Of course there is a well-established stream of research on the inter-relationships between work and non-work life in general. However, empirical studies have tended to focus on one of the following issues: 1) determining the direction and type of influence of one domain on the other, e.g. compensation, spillover, independence (Lee & Kanungo, 1984); 2) examination of predictors and outcomes of work-family conflict (e.g. Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985); or 3) identifying implications of participation in multiple roles based on a scarcity or expansionist perspective (Marks, 1977; Rothbard, 2001). Although the theoretical literature has also suggested viable constructs for investigation like work-life integration (Kossek, Noe & DeMarr, 1999), work-family balance or facilitation (Frone, 2003), and a balanced life (Gallos, 1989), to date there has been little testing of the validity of such formulations (Aryee, Srinivas & Tan, 2005). Furthermore, there has been little exploratory qualitative research to surface individuals' actual conceptions of career success (Greenhaus, 2003; Heslin, 2005). Yet one of the weaknesses of career theory in general, according to Sturges (1999), is the lack of an adequate and holistic conceptualization of career success from the perspective of the individual. A deeper understanding and a more complete picture of career success can be provided by a qualitative exploration of what individuals themselves define as salient or prevalent in their own conceptions of career success. Literature suggests that personal
conceptions of career success for some individuals may be simultaneously associated with both internal and external criteria (Poole et. al, 1993). There has been a long distinction in the career success literature about objective and subjective career success; dating back to the initial theoretical distinction provided by Hughes (1937, 1958). Based on Hughes' framework, objective career success has been defined by
4
observable and measurable criteria, such as pay, promotion, or status. Subjective career success, on the other hand, has been defined by an individual's reactions to unfolding career experiences. In the literature, traditional conceptions of career success were premised on the notion of linear hierarchical career progression in a competitive environment. In more than two thirds of career studies published in major journals between 1980 and 1994, career success was measured by objective measures such as salary, rank or promotion (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). On the other hand; a number of studies (Kofodimos, 1993; Powell and Mainiero, 1999; Sturges, 1999) have found that defining career success in terms of purely external and objective terms such as pay and position is not congruent with what many managers and professionals (especially women) feel about their own career success. Therefore; it is clear that there is a need for more holistic and multidimensional conceptions and definitions of career success, where the interplay between work, family, life, significant others, and various life stages is acknowledged. Overview of Research Studies The research findings reported here are based on two qualitative studies focused on the experiences of professionals and managers in reduced-load work arrangements conducted in 1996-98 and 2002-03. In Study 1 83 cases of reduced-load work were examined in a variety of kinds of jobs in 43 companies in the U.S. and Canada. As 4 of these cases involved job sharing, there were actually 87 participants interviewed about their work arrangements and their careers, family and personal lives. Approximately 6 years later in Study 2 we were able to do a followup interview with 81 of the original 87 participants in order to find out how their careers and lives had evolved over time. In the original study participants were recruited using personal contacts with human resources and work-life managers, cold calls to employers and direct mail
5
solicitations to members of professional organizations (e.g. the Association of Part-Time Professionals). As this was an exploratory study of a new phenomenon, we were seeking a heterogeneous sample to support theory generation as opposed to hypothesis testing. We did not pursue more than 3 cases in any one company, and we tried to include cases that represented individuals pursuing working less for a variety of different reasons and in many different industries. We also sought and achieved having men comprise at least 10% of the sample, given estimates of their representing 10-20% of all professionals/managers in organizations working voluntarily on a reduced-load basis (Catalyst, 1997). The aim was to include individuals in a wide range of types of jobs and family situations, as well as those with a variety of experiences negotiating and maintaining part-time arrangements. In Study 2 conducted 2002-03, we contacted the original participants through our records of their personal coordinates collected for purposes of providing an Executive Feedback Report on findings after Study 1. Eighty-one agreed to be interviewed approximately 6 years after the original interview. In Study 1 working on a reduced-load basis was defined as working less than full-time and being paid proportionately. The lowest percentage of full-time being worked in the sample was 50%, and the highest was 90%. The most typical percentage was either 60% or 80%, the equivalent of 3 or 4 days a week. The sample consisted of 87 professionals and managers in a variety of different kinds of companies (e.g., financial, manufacturing, natural resources, and telecommunications) in 43 different corporations in the U.S. and Canada. Forty-five percent (45%) worked in individual contributor roles and are referred to here as "professionals;" and 55% were managers with at least 3 direct reports. Professionals were most likely to work in the areas of Finance, Human Resources and Corporate Communications, or Research & Development. However, 25% were in Information Systems, Production/Operations, and
6
Marketing. Although some of them had the title of "Manager" and might supervise a secretary or administrative assistant, they did not have responsibility for a group of direct reports. Some examples of job titles were:
Project Director
Product Development Chemist
V.P., Finance Director of Contracts V.P., Info. Systems
Principal Research Scientist Organizational Effectiveness Manager Software Engineer Mgr., International Bus. Development
There were three types of managerial jobs in the sample. Almost half (48%) were managing professionals in a support function. Their direct reports were competent, seasoned professionals needing little direct supervision or coaching (e.g. Director of Finance of Vice President, Human Resources). Thirty-nine percent of the managers were considered "line" managers in that they were in functional areas linked directly to production and operations, or delivery of product/services to customers (e.g. Manager, Export Operations, Sales Manager, Branch Manager). These managers described their jobs primarily as managing their direct reports, who were the ones actually doing the work itself. More than half and sometimes virtually all of their time was spent selecting, training, coaching, mentoring, monitoring, and assessing those they were responsible for, as well as organizing and coordinating the work itself. They were also held accountable for financial or other deliverables on a monthly or quarterly basis, and they operated under critical time deadlines on a regular basis. The final kind of management position involved project managers (13%) who operated typically as matrix managers rather than traditional hierarchical managers (e.g. Software Development). The members of their project teams were all professionals and needed minimal guidance and
7
direction. Their work involved a great deal of lateral interface across different areas, seeking consultation and gaining cooperation on the basis of their expertise and interpersonal skills rather than their rank. In Study 2, of the 81 participants interviewed in the follow-up study, 47% were still working on a reduced-load basis, although 13.5% were self-employed; 38% were working fulltime; and 15% were staying at home temporarily or retired. Of those employed in organizations, 65% were with the same employers as in Study 1, and 55% of them were in managerial roles with supervisory responsibilities. In Study 1 10% of the sample was male, and in Study 2 11% was male, because 5 of the 6 participants not willing to be interviewed the second time were female. Table 1 provides demographic information about the samples at the two different points in time. -----------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 About Here -----------------------------------------------In Study 1 confidential, semi-structured interviews, which were audio-taped and then transcribed verbatim, focused on learning about how reduced-load arrangements were negotiated and sustained and under what kinds of terms, as well as how they were working out from a personal, family and organizational perspective. For each case of reduced-load work, interviews were conducted with not only the target individual working less, but 4 other stakeholders (boss, co-worker, HR representative, and spouse/partner), which enabled the interviewers to get a sense of the success of the arrangements from multiple perspectives. After reviewing all interviews completed in a case, the interviewers gave each case a "global success" rating on a scale of 1 to
8
9, with 7-9 indicating a high level of success, 5-6 a moderate level of success and 1-4 a low level of success. In Study 2 only target individuals who had worked on a reduced-load basis in the earlier study were interviewed. The focus was on what had happened in the intervening period of time and what changes and/or life events had occurred, as well as the current status of their careers and personal and family lives. In addition, each participant was asked to complete a Timeline on 3 dimensions (Career, Family, and Personal) from the time of the first interview to the time of the second, indicating "how well things were working" with 7 indicating "Things working very well" and 1 indicating "Things not working well." These charts yielded self-assessments of outcomes on each of the 3 dimensions at the time of Study 1 and Study 2: Career SelfAssessment Time 1 and Time 2, Family Self-Assessment Time 1 and Time 2, and Personal Life Assessment Time 1 and Time 2. Finally, in Study 2 each Interviewer gave an overall Congruence rating of the individual he or she interviewed after an in-depth analysis of the interview data. This Congruence rating is meant to capture to what extent the participant was living the life he or she desired. So on a scale of 1 to 7, those rated highest (7) were judged by the Interviewers as having the greatest consistency between their dreams or ideals and their actual lives, that is how they orchestrated and calibrated their involvement in work, family and other domains.
Career & Personal Life Outcomes Given that working less than full-time is a deviant pattern for professionals and managers in North America, we were curious about just how successful our sample would be in their careers and how satisfied they would be with the time gained and what they did with it as a result
9
of working on a reduced-load basis. First we examine what we learned from our data in Study 1 about the career and personal life outcomes of these individuals, by using conventional measures of success and listening to boss's assessments of "potential." Secondly, we look at participants' views of the outcomes, in terms of their own personal lives as well as their relationships with children and/or other family members. Finally, we look at Interviewers' assessments of the "global success" of the reduced-load arrangements, which are based on the views of all stakeholders interviewed in each case. At Time 2 we consider how participants' careers fared according to traditional objective criteria like salary and number of promotions received, as well as participants' self-assessments of how well things were going in their careers at Time 2, as well as in comparison with Time 1. We also examine their self-assessments of how things were going in their family and personal lives at Time 1 and Time 2. Finally we look at the Time 2 Interviewers' assessments of the Congruence of participants' actual lives with their desired lives, in terms of their level of involvement in career, family, and other life domains.
Time 1 Outcomes Using conventional measures of career success, we were surprised to find in our interviews from 1996 to 1998 that 35% of the sample had already been promoted while working on a reduced-load basis, even though the mean number of years working reduced load was 4.3. In addition, another third of the sample were expected by their bosses to be promoted within the next year. Reduced-load work arrangements were not necessarily a barrier to career advancement. Furthermore, an anonymous survey of the direct reports of the managerial participants (55% of the sample), indicated that they rated their reduced-load managers' effectiveness on average at 7.2 on a scale from 1 to 9.
10
From a personal perspective participants reported gaining an average of 18 hours per week to spend on their family or other priorities as a result of working on a reduced-load basis. Ninety percent reported positive effects of working less on their children - better relationships and more time to be together. Ninety-one percent said they were happier and more satisfied with the balance between home and work. As for the Interviewers' global rating of the success of the reduced-load arrangements, our criteria were multi-faceted and stringent, given that we had data from 5 different stakeholders per case, as mentioned above. First and foremost we looked at how happy the participants were with working less from a personal point of view - how they felt about their careers and the price they were paying for the time gained and whether they felt they were getting the extra time they wanted for their personal and family lives. Second, we looked at the outcomes from an organizational perspective. Were there costs in performance or productivity in the work unit; did others in the group have to "pick up the slack" creating an unfair overload situation. Third, we looked at how the family was faring to see whether their were positive outcomes for the overall quality of family life, for children, or for the couple relationship. Then we also looked for consistency across stakeholder interviews in reporting positive consequences of the reduced-load arrangements. Interviewers rated each case, taking into consideration all accumulated data from different sources. On as scale of 1 to 9, a 1 indicated consistently negative outcomes reported across stakeholders, and a 9 indicated consistently positive outcomes. Each success rating was checked for validity by another member of the research team. After the ratings were completed, 3 groups were created: high, moderate, and low. Most of the cases (62%) were in the high success group, 31% in the moderate success group, and 7% in the low success group.
11
Time 2 Outcomes At Time 2 the 81 participants were no longer all in reduced-load positions. Forty-seven (47%) percent were still working less than full-time, whereas 38% had returned to full-time. Fifteen percent (15%) were staying home, mostly to spend time with their children, but 2 had retired and 1 was temporarily unemployed. Participants experienced many changes and challenges during the period between the two interviews; some were work-related and some had to do with family and personal life. Certain changes came about as a result of events totally out of their control, such as a company being acquired or going through downsizing, or an illness in the family. Others were self-initiated, or came about because of a spouse's decision, for example, to change jobs. Major life events experienced by at least a third of the sample included: birth or adoption of a child, serious illness or death of a close friend or relative, organizational downsizing, and either a child with a serious illness or learning problem or personal serious illness. In examining how successful participants were in all aspects of their lives, we looked at their own subjective point of view, according to their personal goals, as well as at conventional objective measures of career success, like upward mobility and salary increases. Overall we found that despite experiencing many changes and challenges over 6 years, most of the participants were doing quite well, as assessed by both subjective and objective measures of outcomes. Employed participants as a whole had an average rate of increase in fulltime equivalent salary of 38% over 6 years, and the mean salaries of the full-time versus part-
12
time participants were virtually the same ($111,725 and $111,927 USD) after adjusting the latter for the degree of reduced load. Over 6 years the group overall had received 65 promotions or clear increases in responsibility or status through a career move outside their former organization, with 44 individuals receiving at least 1 and 17 receiving 2 or more. These gains were made in spite of the fact that the average number of years the participants had spent working on a reduced-load basis was 8. Subjective measures of success provided by the Interviewer and self-assessment ratings were also quite positive, as shown in Figure 1 below. The Interviewers rated participants on the basis of how congruent their current lives were with their desired lives, on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 indicating the greatest congruence or consistency. Overall, the average rating was 5.3, with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 7. As shown below, half of the sample received a rating greater than 6, and only 11% received a rating less than 4. The self-assessment ratings were calculated on the basis of a Timeline Exercise on 3 dimensions (career, family, personal) covering the time from the 1st interview to the 2nd. ----------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 About Here ----------------------------------------------------Participants were asked to draw a line to indicate how their career, personal and family lives were working out, as shown below in Figure 2. The horizontal axis was time, and the vertical axis was how well things were working. The point where each line (career, family, and personal) ended at the time of the 2nd interview was interpreted as the individual's assessment of how things were going on a scale of 1 to 7. Close to 50% of the sample in each of the three
13
domains indicated things were going very well (>6), and less than 20% of the sample in each of the domains indicated things were not going well (