Are you really working an 80-hour week?
Last month, Harvard Business Review published a synopsis of a research study, "Why Some Men Pretend to Work 80-Hour Weeks" by its author, Erin Reid. Reid's study looked at employees at a top strategy consulting firm, where long hours, international travel, and an always-on mentality ruled. Those who delivered on those expectations were defined as top employees and often promoted, and those who balked based on family obligations - whether male or female - were penalized with lower performance rankings and few opportunities to advance.
This article popped up across my feed over the last few weeks (the best discussion I heard was on last week's Slate's Double X Podcast), and the discussion has largely centered around the different ways that men and women worked within this culture to still have time with their families. Those who approached the challenges of creating an integrated or balanced work/life scenario with transparency, openness, or by taking advantage of family-friendly policies were penalized, while those who figured out ways to "pass" - to get the work done and create the illusion of total devotion while carving out their desired balance - were promoted. The difference? Those "passing" were almost entirely men.
As I was working on this post, Fast Company published "These Are The New Rules of Work" which highlights the shifts in the culture at many workplaces, as our work becomes a 24/7, always-on, work where you live and live where you work environment. The tone of the piece is upbeat (with reservations) but I, and many others I've talked to have found it wholly depressing. Where, indeed, is the post-work utopia that was to come with advances in technology?
At the professional services firm Reid studied, this utopia was available to those who leaned on their networks and strong personal relationships to create a personal environment where they could do great work but also have a family - but not everyone has those kinds of relationships or networks. Most of the commentary on this piece has focused on this dichotomy - transparency vs. passing - and why men are more successful at the latter. Somewhat missed in this discussion is whether passing is a good idea at all, which Reid addresses late in the article (emphasis is mine):
[P]assing is not a good strategy for the organization as a whole: not only does it involve an element of deception between colleagues, bosses, and subordinates, it also perpetuates the myth that those who are successful are also all wholly devoted to work. Yet, a critical implication of this research is that working long hours is not necessary for high quality work. The experiences of those men who passed show clearly that, even in a client service setting, it is possible to reorganize work such that it is more predictable and consumes fewer hours.
For me, the most stunning implications came in the final paragraph of the HBR piece; Reid reported her findings to the executives of the firm she studied and got two responses - that the men who revealed themselves to be less than fully committed to their work were not the kinds of employees they wanted anyways, and a request to help women figure out how to pass. There was no recognition of the role of the organization to enable top-performers to contribute to the success of the organization in the manner which suits their personal and family demands.
How can we push organizations to shift this mindset that 24/7 is not required for us to be doing good work? In fact, it is likely what's preventing us from doing our best work. Allowing the perpetuation of work environments where the choice is between transparency and obfuscation isn't good for business and it isn't good for workers.