I would argue that this context is one in which we should be particularly mindful of the importance of balancing the work and non-work domains of life, for the benefit of both employees and employers. There are a number of factors that could potentially impact employees’ work-life balance, including:

1. Avoiding redundancy: In organisations where there is a risk of redundancy, employees may wish to make themselves seem indispensable. As a result, they may feel it’s not the right moment to explore flexible working options with their manager or indeed take advantage of flexibility that is already their right. In other cases, those working part-time may put in additional hours to indicate organisational commitment to their manager. Others will volunteer to take on additional responsibilities to offset the change of job loss.

2. Surviving redundancy: Where headcount reduction has already taken place, surviving employees may well have to pick up at least some of the workload of their erstwhile colleagues, whether they like it or not. This can easily result in longer working hours and spillover of work to home life.

In fact, employers should be paying more attention to the work-life balance of their employees now so as to prevent burnout. Indeed, even the negative impacts on satisfaction and productivity the precede burnout should be enough to convince employers that long hours at work don’t necessarily translate into better outputs.

It’s a challenging context, especially when we consider the employers’ perspective. How employers put across their message regarding work-life balance can really impact employees’ perceptions of the situation. However, this discourse paints a picture of a zero-sum game. One party’s win is the other’s loss. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Both employers and employees need to understand the role that recovery from work plays in preparing us for the ongoing demands of the workplace. Insufficient time away from work – physically and psychologically – has deleterious effects on health and general wellbeing. Employers should be on the lookout for employee behaviour that prevents them from fully recovering from work or that causes them to neglect their wellbeing. This may involve the counterintuitive step of monitoring overly long working hours, avoiding taking holidays etc.

So in order to maintain a healthy, motivated and productive workforce, contributing to a successful organisation, employers should now more than ever be mindful of challenges to employees’ work-life balance.

The work-life balance discourse has been influenced (and somewhat limited) by the terminology used to describe the concept, particularly its reference to “balance” and limited interpretations of the word “family”. Terminology shapes the concept, its discussion and evolution.

An emphasis on family ignores those employees whose home life does not conform to the traditional concept of nuclear family. “Family” as a concept now encompasses a much broader range of relationships and generations than the co-habiting married husband and wife with children. Previous research in the work-life balance area has made the mistake of conflating “family” with this traditional structure.

A focus on “work-family balance” for example, immediately places importance on family life, as opposed to a more holistic view of an employee’s experience outside the workplace. Examples here include engagement in social activities, sports and fitness and self-development activities such as evening classes. It also ignores those without children and those outside of stable relationships.

Further, reference to “balance” indicates that balance is possible and even desirable. Balance also suggests a static point in time at which equilibrium between these two life domains becomes possible. In reality, the ever-changing demands in both workplace and non-work life domains mean that managing these often competing demands requires an ongoing, dynamic effort. Essentially balance is never attained.

“Work-family conflict” implies that difficulties between the two domains are inevitable. Research has demonstrated that we can experience positive overspill between work and private life, when for example positive mood experienced at work carries on into home life. Or when skills developed in one domain are successfully and positively applied in the other.

On the other hand, “Work-Life Balance” is what the general public are familiar with and is much easier to communicate than “the Work-domain / non-work domain interface”! I think the onus is on professionals in this area to ensure the full variety of work-life balance experiences are considered when examining this topic, avoiding an overly narrow focus on the difficulties of managing workplace and “family” demands.

Similarly, we should challenge narrow interpretations of the concept – for example, where flexible working is thought only to be applicable or beneficial to parents of young children.

Let me know what you think via the poll below.

A district mayor in the Japanese capital, Tokyo, is going on paternity leave on Saturday, the first local government leader ever to do so.

Hironobu Narisawa, the mayor of the central Bunkyo ward, said he was aiming to change attitudes.

Japanese workers are famously reluctant to take time off after the birth of a child even though Japanese law allows either parent to have up to a year off.

Mr Narisawa’s announcement has been front page news in Japan.

The Mainichi Daily News elaborated on the Mayor’s motivation for going public with his decision:

Narisawa announced his paternity leave on his Twitter page on Wednesday night, saying, “I am delighted to announce the birth of my first son. I would like to enjoy parenting.”

According to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, there has been no known case in the country in which a local administrative chief, whether male or female, took a child-care leave. Even though a parental leave system for mayors has yet to be established in Bunkyo Ward, Narisawa hopes to promote understanding for men’s involvement in child rearing and pave the way for other male workers.

“I believe men are reluctant to take parental leave because they are worried about salary cuts, the reaction of their colleagues, and its impact on their career paths. I hope my example will contribute to promoting a working environment where male workers can feel comfortable about taking leave for their children,” Narisawa said during a press interview on Thursday. “Through my initiative, I want to prove that paternity leave will not hurt fathers’ careers,” he added.

The mayor’s attempt to lead by example is to be applauded, illustrating as it does the need to back up stated policy with action – preferably from organisational leaders. There is no point in launching work-life balance initiatives in an organisation, when the subtext is that employees are expected to soldier on and only take advantage of workplace flexibility in the event of dire emergency.

The concept of work-life balance is not completely alien in Japan – the Japanese Government launched a Work-Life Balance Charter several years ago, though this strikes me as somewhat aspirational:

The main objectives of the charter are envisioned as three attributes of society, that is, it aims to create a society where (1) people can provide themselves with jobs, (2) have time to lead healthy, affluent lives, and (3) can choose from a diversity of working and living styles. The charter also sets up numerical targets to be achieved in five and ten years to gauge individual fulfillment in several areas.

Additionally, there are no set penalties for organisations that fail to meet any of these targets. Aspirational and toothless. A 2007 survey of Japanese employees reported that 69% worked in organisations without any formal work-life balance policy or initiatives.  More recent data, from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, reports that Japanese employees fail to take the annual holiday leave to which they are entitled:

According to a ministry survey last year, workers in Japan took an average of 8.5 vacation days in 2008, or 47.4 percent of the average 18 days available to them.

The government is seeking to raise the percentage to 60 percent by 2012 and 100 percent in 2017.

The new guideline, in line with a Cabinet decision in December on the promotion of vacations, calls for companies to check how many days of vacation each worker takes.

So Mayor Narisawa’s departure from the norm is a welcome step in the right direction, one that will hopefully be followed by similar actions from his governmental colleagues. This kind of cultural change is neither easy nor quick – employees need to see tangible examples of others actively seeking to balance the demands of work and home, while benefiting from the support of their employer.

Graphology, for those of you lucky to avoided it thus far, is a psuedo-science that advocates the analysis of handwriting as a tool for personality assessment. Yes, handwriting analysis is still around, despite the best attempts of real scientists to demonstrate its complete and utter lack of validity.

There are two concepts central to any psychometric assessment: validity and reliability. Validity is basically the extent to which your test measures the construct it claims to measure. Reliability refers to the various ways in which your test can be viewed as accurate. Sound, scientific tests needs both, but it’s important to realise that an assessment method can be reliable (you get similar results time after time, for example) without being valid. Graphology is a case in point.

Although vaguely entertaining (on a slow news day, perhaps) when applied in this context, graphology is an absolutely pointless method to adopt when assessing potential employees. A well-design competency-based interview will tell you far more about a job candidate than any analysis of their scrawl ever will. Sadly, graphology is still used in these contexts, despite it’s utter failure to accurately select the right candidate any better than pure chance.

Why? Perhaps because at first, it appears like a logical claim: your handwriting is reflective of your personality. And studies have demonstrated that the average person can determine the gender of someone from looking at their handwriting in about 70% of cases. A list of studies examining the utility of graphology can be found here. In summary, they point to it being a waste of time.

Statistics on the deployment of graphology in recruitment are very hard to come by. That, I think, is reflective of the success graphology has achieved. If businesses were finding graphology to be the best selection tool ever, don’t you think they’d be proud to tell the world they were using it?

I thought so.

I think The Skeptic’s Dictionary expresses it best:

Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.

Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis testing.

If you want results and you want them now and you want them stated in strong, certain terms, graphology is for you. If, however, you can live with reasonable probabilities and uncertainty, you might try another method to pick a spouse or hire an employee.

Further reading:

Furnham, Adrian. “Write and Wrong: The Validity of Graphological Analysis,” in The Hundredth Monkey and Other Paradigms of the Paranormal, ed. Kendrick Frazier (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1991), pp. 200-205.

Beyerstein, Barry and Dayle F. Beyerstein, editors, The Write Stuff – Evaluations of Graphology, the Study of Handwriting Analysis (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1991).

How Graphology Fools People – Barry Beyerstein Link

The survey itself is extremely brief and serves as an adjunct to the main quantitative phase of my research, where I examined the links between demographic factors (such as gender) and the experience of the interface between work and personal life.

I’m looking for a nice big sample for this one, so if you have 5 minutes (literally!) to spare, you can complete the survey here:

http://bit.ly/4ba8po

Also, feel free to pass on the link to colleagues and friends. The only pre-requisite is that respondents are employed.

Many thanks – and look out for a summary of results on this blog.

Note: This survey has now closed – thanks for your help!

However, owing to the present economic climate and the potential for disruption these new leave entitlements may bring, the new regulations won’t come into effect until April 2011.

While objectively “a good thing”, the news hasn’t been welcomed positively by all commentators. The British Chambers of Commerce and Federation of Small Business have criticised the timing of the move and warned about the administrative burden it places on businesses.

In addition, the Fatherhood Institute, while welcoming the recognition of the role of fathers, criticised the lack of what they referred to as “well-paid” parental leave:

Rob Williams, Chief Executive of the Fatherhood Institute said: “We welcome the recognition that fathers are important to their children, and the government’s commitment to encouraging fathers to be more involved in their care.

“But whilst it is a step in the right direction, we are concerned that take-up amongst fathers will be low. There is no real incentive package and what is being offered will either be unpaid or paid at a very low rate so few families will be able to afford for fathers to take it up. In addition, there is a risk that some poorer families will miss out altogether, for instance where mothers are not entitled to maternity pay and therefore have no rights to transfer over.

“We would like to see the government make the entitlement to leave available to fathers in their own right, and develop a model similar to that used in Germany, Norway, and many other European countries, where a significant amount of leave – paid at a reasonable rate – is specifically available to just the father.”

Payment aside, one has to wonder about the potential for take-up of paternal leave when so many UK organisations are making staff redundant. Many employees fear taking time off due to illness in this kind of environment, let alone several months of paternity leave. It will be interesting to see rates of take-up up of this leave once introduced, particularly if the economy hasn’t at least begun to stage a recovery in the UK. The Government itself estimates that at most 8% of qualifying fathers will claim this new additional paternal leave.

The Guardian has some insight from a Danish father, Denmark being one of the examples generally highlighted in the parental leave debate:

It’s wonderful to be that close to your child – this intimacy is something you will never have experienced before. It’s also great for your relationship. But there are downsides. You will experience sleep and sound torture. Your brain will be entirely focused on nap intervals and porridge intake. You’ll cry in public places. In short, you are about to enter – simultaneously – heaven and hell. Welcome.

Would you take advantage of the new paternity leave? If not, why not? Let me know in the comments!

The firm said it had no plans to reopen the scheme, but added that it remained “committed to the 2009 intake”, who are due to start in September.

(The aforementioned 2009 intake have probably just breathed an enormous sigh of relief!)

It shouldn’t be that surprising that a business like BT, which is trying to cut costs in a major way, should close down what is sure to be an expensive scheme. The fact that they had 4,800 applicants for just 130 graduate positions last year, combined with present unemployment rates, means they’re not likely to experience a shortage of talent coming their way. The intense development, training and admin costs that accompany graduate schemes must have stood out when BT looked to reduce costs.

The impact on graduates is clear – fewer roles for increasing numbers of graduates means that competition will increase and organisations can be a lot choosier with who they bring on board. Graduates will need to up their game, emphasising the key skills and experience they bring to potential employers, and doing what they can to stand out in a much more crowded market.

Specifically? Getting an accurate, brief and grammatically correct CV for a start! Getting practice at interviewing and participating in mock assessment centres while still at University would also be beneficial.

BT won’t be the last large organisation to close or reduce the size of their graduate intake. The state of the financial services industry would seem to indicate the Banks might be next. In the above cited article, the BBC estimates unemployment among 16 – 24 year olds to be at 19%. Not that it was every easy, but the graduate market has just gotten more difficult.

The New York Times has brought to light a story that has relevance for this blog, regarding the involvement of psychologists in interrogation of terrorism suspects. They report how two US psychologists with no prior training in or understanding of interrogation became leading consultants to the CIA:

They had never carried out a real interrogation, only mock sessions in the military training they had overseen. They had no relevant scholarship; their Ph.D. dissertations were on high blood pressure and family therapy. They had no language skills and no expertise on Al Qaeda.

Having suggested new and better ways to interrogate, they actually participated in brutal interrogation of terrorist suspects:

By the end of March, when agency operatives captured Abu Zubaydah, initially described as Al Qaeda’s No. 3, the Mitchell-Jessen interrogation plan was ready. At a secret C.I.A. jail in Thailand, as reported in prior news accounts, two F.B.I agents used conventional rapport-building methods to draw vital information from Mr. Zubaydah. Then the C.I.A. team, including Dr. Mitchell, arrived.

With the backing of agency headquarters, Dr. Mitchell ordered Mr. Zubaydah stripped, exposed to cold and blasted with rock music to prevent sleep. Not only the F.B.I. agents but also C.I.A. officers at the scene were uneasy about the harsh treatment. Among those questioning the use of physical pressure, according to one official present, were the Thailand station chief, the officer overseeing the jail, a top interrogator and a top agency psychologist.

Whether they protested to C.I.A. bosses is uncertain, because the voluminous message traffic between headquarters and the Thailand site remains classified. One witness said he believed that “revisionism” in light of the torture controversy had prompted some participants to exaggerate their objections.

As the weeks passed, the senior agency psychologist departed, followed by one F.B.I. agent and then the other. Dr. Mitchell began directing the questioning and occasionally speaking directly to Mr. Zubaydah, one official said.

In late July 2002, Dr. Jessen joined his partner in Thailand. On Aug. 1, the Justice Department completed a formal legal opinion authorizing the SERE methods, and the psychologists turned up the pressure. Over about two weeks, Mr. Zubaydah was confined in a box, slammed into the wall and waterboarded 83 times.

The brutal treatment stopped only after Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen themselves decided that Mr. Zubaydah had no more information to give up. Higher-ups from headquarters arrived and watched one more waterboarding before agreeing that the treatment could stop, according to a Justice Department legal opinion.

This Obama administration has taken steps to dismantle the shady operations that permitted such torture and in particular has banned the involvement of “consultants” (as these psychologists were viewed) in the interrogation of suspects. Their multi-million dollar operation has folded and it appears that criminal proceedings are imminent.

While the British Psychological Society issued a Declaration in 2005 condemning state-sponsored torture in all its forms – and some might view this as quite late in the day – simultaneously banning UK Psychologists who wanted to remain members from participating in such activity, its American counterpart, the APA, waited until 2008 to pass a similar motion.

The APA petition was passed by 8,792 votes to 6,157.

I think in the light of the above, it’s worth spelling out what the British Psychological Society demands of its members in this regard:

Psychologists shall not countenance, condone or participate in the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading procedures, whatever the offence of which the victim of such procedures is suspected, accused or guilty, and whatever the victim’s beliefs or motives, and in all situations, including armed conflict and civil strife.

Psychologists shall not provide any premises, instruments, substances or knowledge to facilitate the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or to diminish the ability of the victim to resist such treatment.

Psychologists shall not be present during any procedure during which torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is used or threatened.

Psychologists must have complete professional independence in deciding upon the care of a person for whom they are responsible.