APA Center for Organizational Excellence: Good Company

Resources for Employers

Good Company Blog

April 2018 Archives

big-bad-wolf.jpg

I was intrigued this past week when I noticed a new article coming out in the Academy of Management Annals. Perrigino, Dunford, and Wilson (in press) provide a review of a concept they termed work-family backlash. In the article, they emphasize that backlash from work-life balance (WLB) policies and practices can occur due to:

  • perceptions of inequity from policies and practices being available for some employees but not others;
  • stigmatization that occurs when employees use existing policies and practices, such as flextime or parental leave options;
  • negative spillover that occurs when employees who use WLB policies and practices end up experiencing more negative outcomes outside of work (e.g., those who feel compelled to work more hours when they work from home); and
  • strategic mismanagement, such as when the cost of such practices are poorly considered, when practices are rescinded due to a failure to produce desired results, or when policies exist but are not actually supported.

While an extensive body of literature does not yet exist regarding these issues, it is clear that the current research suggests that organizations need to be mindful of how they approach the issue of WLB. It certainly has become a trendy topic within contemporary organizations, and a fair amount of public opinion polling suggests that employees will stay or leave, at least in part, due to their perceived work-life balance.

Before you jump on the bandwagon

Yet, as this recent review emphasizes, if organizations want to benefit from these types of policies and practices, then the decision to offer them must involve more than simply a desire to jump on the WLB bandwagon. A systematic process needs to occur to ensure that the practices are well designed to meet the needs of the organization as a whole.

But there is a problem that occurs when the topic of work-life balance surfaces. There is no universal, accepted definition for work-life balance (or any of the myriad terms that are used). Specific WLB policies and practices often arise from many sources:

  • In response to a given need, perhaps identified as part of an annual employee survey;
  • As a way to improve retention, productivity or attractiveness to job candidates, whether or not evidence suggests that WLB issues are important;
  • As a way of keeping pace with competitors; and
  • Organically within a given work unit or department as a function of a manager’s or supervisor’s perspective on the issue.

The examples above highlight that specific WLB policies and practices may develop, not as a part of an overall strategy, but to serve specific tactical purposes. When that occurs, organizations run the risk of creating policies and practices that either fail to produce the desired results or produce unintended consequences.

Even if there is an overarching strategy, it is often assumed that practices, if well designed, will be also well implemented. In other words, as evidenced by Perrigino et al., there is a difference between availability and utilization.

Making work-life practices available for employees is only the first step

To ensure these practices are used, organizations need put forth effort to ensure:

  • These practices are a fit with the organization’s existing culture;
  • They align with assumptions and values of managers up and down the hierarchy;
  • Proper structures and processes exist to support these policies and practices; and
  • There will not be unintended negative consequences as a result of implementing them.

In other words, there is a lot of effort that needs to go into the development and implementation of WLB policies and practices if they are going to be effective. When it comes to developing a psychologically healthy workplace, organizations need to better understand where interventions are needed and what types of interventions are likely to produce the intended results. An important step in this process is ensuring that whatever policies and practices are designed are part of a holistic approach to organizational development.

Want to know more about building work-life balance through work flexibility? Check out APA's work-flex resource guide.


Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Editors note: This is one in a series of posts focused on articles published in the March 2018 special edition of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, which addresses recent advances, issues and discoveries surrounding the neuroscience of coaching and consulting psychology. Each paper provides research and practical implications for those who want to enhance individual, team, and organizational effectiveness. Read more about consulting psychology on the CP&U blog.

Guest post by Elliot Berkman, PhD

cpb-150.gif

Humans are great at setting goals but not nearly as good at attaining them. Why? Countless resources have been dedicated to answering that question in academic fields including consulting psychology, management and social psychology. And even those efforts must be dwarfed by the cumulative time spent pondering the question by every human being who set a goal and failed to achieve it.

In a new paper in the Consulting Psychology Journal, I provide a conceptual framework to explain why behavior change can be so hard. The framework draws upon neuroscientific data as well as theory and research from social, cognitive and clinical psychology. The paper provides consultants and coaches with new, evidence-based tools to help their clients understand why they struggle to change their behavior. Insight into the underlying factors that make behavior change hard can highlight ways that clients and coaches can work together to overcome them.

As a researcher working at the interface of psychology and neuroscience, I've spent the past decade and a half considering how knowledge about the human brain can inform behavior change interventions. I've found that one of the most useful approaches is to divide behavior change into two broad components: the will and the way.

The will and the way

The way I'm using it here, the “will” refers to the motivational and emotional aspects of behavior change. The will is the “why” of behavior change. Why is the behavior important to you? Why do you want to change? Why now?

In contrast, the “way” refers to the cognitive and informational aspects of behavior change. The way is the “how” of behavior change. How is behavior change going to unfold? What skills and capacities does it require? What is the specific plan?

Both the will and the way are necessary for successful behavior change. A goal requires a will and a way. But neuroscience has revealed that the brain systems involved in those two sides of the behavior change coin are entirely different from each other. Likewise, the interventions that a coach can use to help a client who is struggling with behavior change would be very different if the problem were related to the will or the way.

Identify the problem

The first step for a coach is to identify the nature of the problem. Is the barrier to change a lack of knowledge, skill, or capacity? Then tools can be identified to address those “way” issues. Alternatively, perhaps the client knows what to do and how to do it, but just...can't. Then a motivational program is in order. And the options are not mutually exclusive: sometimes skill-building is required in addition to finding motivation. But, even in that case, it can be useful to acknowledge the distinction between the two and address them separately.

Learning new skills, abilities and information requires executive function, which is the term neuroscientists use to describe the “way.” A core feature of executive function is that it demands conscious attention, and we can only fully attend to one thing at a time. Deploying executive function to deal with one goal means that other goals are pushed into the mental background. In economic terms, there is an opportunity cost to deploying the way. That cost is reflected in the sense of effort. So, changing behavior can feel hard because it means directing your limited mental focus on one goal and ignoring others.

behavior-change-blog.jpg

Finding the reward

But what about cases when the skills and knowledge are there but the will is not? Why can it feel so hard to motivate to do something that you have the ability to do? In the Consulting Psychology Journal paper, I describe how motivation is intertwined with reward value, and reward value, in turn, is deeply influenced by past experience. An important consequence of this biological fact is that new behaviors are rarely as motivating as existing ones that have previously been rewarded. Why try that new exercise, for example, when it may or may not feel good and you know for sure that watching Netflix will be enjoyable?

Of course, people do engage in new behaviors and for a variety of reasons. It's not that new behaviors can't be rewarding, it's just that they'll usually be the underdog compared to alternatives that are well learned. The key for coaches and consultants is to help clients identify ways of engaging with new tasks that make them rewarding.

One such approach is to increase reward with personal sources of value by linking the new behavior with core values and beliefs that are central to a client's identity. Another is to increase reward with social value by leveraging social norms and interpersonal relationships to increase the importance of a goal. Both of these cases have an advantage over tangible forms of value, such as money, because they can be far more enduring and universal. Money runs out and doesn't have the same meaning for all people, but we all have core values and care deeply about our social ties.

Behavior change will always be hard. No advice can change that. But neuroscience can provide insights about how, when and why behavior change efforts succeed and fail. This knowledge can uncover new ways for coaches and their clients to promote change, and make behavior change seem less daunting in the process.

Elliot Berkman, Ph.D., is an associate professor of psychology, director of the Social and Affective Neuroscience lab, and co-director of the Center for Translational Neuroscience at the University of Oregon. He also directs Berkman Consultants, LLC, a consulting and custom research firm.

Subscribe

Bookmark

  • Bookmark and Share

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from April 2018 listed from newest to oldest.

March 2018 is the previous archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Monthly Archives