Like many other research areas in psychology, the terminology used to address Work-Life Balance has developed with time, in the most part reflecting an evolution of research focus. However, there still remains a plethora of terms used, seemingly interchangeably, to describe an examination of the interface between the workplace and an employee’s personal life.
Probably the most popular term in use is a collective “Work-Life Balance”, though a number of others are still in use, including: Work-Family Balance, Work-Family Conflict, Work-Family Interference, Work-Family Spillover and so on.
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.
