Research,the application of ideas from the literature, problem solving and critical analysis (REPORT)

The future of work-life fit

Ellen Galinsky, Kenneth Matos

Organizational Dynamics (2011) 40, 267—280

a va ila ble at ww w. scie nce dir ect. com

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / o r g d y n

INTRODUCTION

When work-life fit emerged as a research topic in the 1960s and 1970s, there was not a great deal of variety in the ways people managed — or at least believed they should manage — their work, family and personal lives. The lives of employees on and off the job were generally structured around well- defined gender roles that split work and family responsibil- ities into two discrete, gender-specific spheres. Men were expected to concentrate on their jobs outside the home and women were expected to make caring for their homes and families their major if not full-time focus. In Unbending Gender, Joan Williams writes that market work was organized around the ‘‘ideal worker,’’ who ‘‘works full-time and over- time and takes little or no time off for childbearing or childrearing.’’ While not all jobs were structured around that ideal, the good ones were, thus marginalizing those who focused on their families.

During that time, there was little societal or business support for people who wanted to find other ways to combine their personal and work lives. Although representative stu- dies of employers reveal that companies were gradually providing more assistance with child care, elder care, and workplace flexibility in the latter years of the 20th century, employees seeking alternative ways to work — often literally called ‘‘alternative work arrangements’’ — would frequently have to fashion these arrangements on their own. In addition, employees looking for such arrangements were seen as deviating from the model of the ideal worker and thus were viewed as less committed. In fact, two out of every five employees reported that there were tradeoffs for using flexibility — those who did so were less likely to advance. Other assumptions were commonplace: ‘‘presence equals productivity,’’ ‘‘if you give employees an inch, they will take a mile,’’ ‘‘if you provide workplace flexibility, there would be no one present to do the work,’’ ‘‘if employees can’t hack it, they should quit work and stay at home,’’ and ‘‘work life really means work less.’’ Providing workplace flexibility was often seen as a perk that an employer might give to a valued

0090-2616/$ — see front matter # 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.07.004

employee under the table rather than as a strategic business tool.

Today’s economy provides a different stage for work-life issues to play out. It has moved beyond its industrial roots to become more knowledge- and service-based; it is global, fast-paced and competitive. Furthermore, it is volatile, plunging in and out of downturns, including the slow recovery from the 2007—2009 recession. Technology enabling employ- ees to be connected to their work at anytime and anyplace (or at every time and every place), as well as the high cost of real estate, have called the vision of work as primarily ‘‘place-based’’ or ‘‘time-based’’ increasingly into question.

Many employers are already shifting. IBM Corp., a com- pany that just celebrated its centennial anniversary, has shed much of its legendary formality. Today, only 42 percent of employees work at an IBM location, and global teams form and reform, with members sometimes only knowing each other virtually. These teams struggle to find times when they can have ‘‘live’’ conversations across the world’s time zones. The company now uses social media to connect employees, including ‘‘world jams’’ where employees suggest solutions to business problems and second-life strategies where IBM employee avatars have relationships with other IBM employee avatars across the globe.

And employees are shifting. All things being equal, many employees see time as a currency that is as or almost as important to them as money. In fact, 87 percent of employees report that having workplace flexibility would be extremely or very important if they were seeking a new job, according to the 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW).

Some of these shifts are obvious, while others are more subtle. The companies that address these trends will have a competitive advantage based in strong human capital man- agement, an important component of success in a service- and knowledge-based economy. The purpose of this article is to highlight these changes and give employers an opportunity to prepare for the future. In it, we profile the challenges we see as most significant, primarily drawing on data from the

.

268 E. Galinsky, K. Matos

NSCW. This ongoing study was built upon the 1977 Quality of Employment Survey (QES) conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor and has been conducted every five to six years since 1992 by the Families and Work Institute (FWI). It thus contains the most comprehensive nationally representative data on the lives of the American workforce on and off the job over the past three decades.

Challenges can lead to opportunities, and a number of employers are responding by developing new, more effective ways to work and to gain an advantage in their markets. In this article, we also provide examples of approaches to work- life fit that we see as particularly innovative. All of these come from the 2009 and 2010 winners of the Sloan Awards. This rigorous worksite award is a joint project of FWI and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). To be a winner of a Sloan Award, employers with ten or more employ- ees can self-nominate, filling out an online survey about the flexibility their worksite provides. If they qualify by being among the top 20 percent of employers in the U.S., based on data from FWI’s ongoing nationally representative organiza- tional study, the National Study of Employers (NSE), they move to Round II, where their employees are surveyed about their ‘‘on the ground’’ experiences in working in a flexible and effective workplace. The employees’ answers, which constitute two-thirds of the final score, are then compared with employee data from FWI’s NSCW to identify the winners.

CHALLENGE: WOMEN AND MEN, ESPECIALLY YOUNGER ONES, HOLD NEW VIEWS OF THEIR ROLES AT WORK AND AT HOME

Perhaps the most far-reaching change affecting work-life fit is a convergence of gender roles among men and women. Traditional gender roles enabled managing work and family responsibilities by splitting work and family life between men and women. In 1977, the QES found that 74 percent of employed men somewhat or strongly agreed with the state- ment, ‘‘It is better for all involved if the man earns the money and the woman takes care of the home and children.’’ By comparison, 52 percent of employed women also agreed with this statement. For the first time in 2008, there is no statis- tically significant difference in the views of employed men and women, with 40 percent of men and 37 percent of women agreeing with this statement. Though older employees have consistently been more likely to endorse traditional gender roles than younger employees, over time employees of all ages have been less likely to hold such views. For example, 90 percent of employees 63 years old and older agreed with this statement in 1977, compared with 51 percent today. Among younger employees (under 29 years old), the change has been from 55 percent in 1977 to 34 percent today.

There are many reasons that have contributed to these changes in gender role ideology — from the women’s move- ment to a desire for social justice. However, we believe that three very important drivers of these changes are women’s increased educational attainment, women’s growing parti- cipation in the labor force, and families’ increased depen- dence on the income of women.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, women have been earning more bachelor’s degrees than men since 1982, more master’s degrees since 1981, and more doctorate

degrees as of 2006. By 2016, women are projected to earn the majority of bachelor’s (57 percent), master’s (60 percent) and doctorate and professional degrees (54 percent). Should these trends continue women overall will be equally if not better educated than men. Thus, the U.S. economy is increasingly dependent on the talent of women. In addition, the growing educational achievements of women place them in a potentially good position to move into high profile and decision-making roles. As their presence in the workforce becomes more visible and influential the traditional view of a woman’s place as being exclusively in the home will continue to fade.

Another primary factor contributing to changes in women’s and men’s views of their roles at work and at home has been the increase of women in the workforce overall (not just in positions requiring higher education). Changes in the U.S. economy have raised the cost of a middle-class lifestyle, often making it impossible for a large number of families to maintain their socio-economic status on a single salary. While almost 39 percent of women and men wish for a traditional split of gender roles, it is becoming increasingly difficult to afford such an arrangement. As a result, dual earner couples have become more common, with the percentage of couples having both members employed outside the home increasing by 14 percentage points from 1977 (66 percent) to 2008 (80 percent). For many of these dual-earner couples, the woman’s salary is a significant component of overall finances, averaging to about 44 percent of total household income. We also see a striking increase in the percentage of mothers in the workforce, contributing to the rising costs of raising a family (Fig. 1). In addition, the recession of 2007—2009 further increased women’s prominence in the labor force, as many of the jobs that were initially lost were held by men. The net effect of these changes is that, though men still outnumber women in the workforce as a whole, that gap has been narrowing for some time. Today, women represent about 47 percent of wage and salaried employees.

In tandem with women’s increasing involvement in the workforce and contribution to household income, we have seen a trend toward a convergence in the percentage of men and women who desire positions with more responsibility. Though both men and women have demonstrated signifi- cantly reduced ambitions in recent years (reductions of 24 and 20 percentage points, respectively), women appear to be rebounding faster than men. This trend is especially pro- nounced among the youngest members of the workforce. Among employees 29 years old or younger (Millennials), we see the same steep decline in the desire for jobs with more responsibility that are present in the overall workforce between 1992 and 1997. Yet, by 2008, women’s ambitions have risen faster than men’s such that now there is no statistically significant difference between men and women (Fig. 2). In addition, we find that having children has no impact on the desire for more responsibility among women under 29, showing that the stereotype of women’s career ambitions waning upon becoming mothers no longer holds true.

Following on the heels of women’s expansion into the work domain, men have taken on more of the household work that previously belonged solely to women. FWI’s research shows that men are investing more time with their children under 13, increasing from 2 h/workday in 1977 to 3.1 h in 2008. This

80%

61% 66%

68% 72%

54% 56% 65%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

1992 1997 2002 2008 Men und er 29 (Millennials in 2008) Women un der 29 (Millenn ials in 2008)

Figure 2 Young Men’s and Women’s Desire to have Jobs with Greater Responsibility. Statistically significant differences between men and women: 1992**; 1997*; 2002**; 2008 n.s. (1992 n = 686; 1997 n = 657; 2002 n = 590; 2008 n = 341). Source: Families and Work Institute, National Study of the Changing Workforce, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2008.

86%

71%

34%

59%49%

71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Men 16 and older in th e labo r force Wom en 16 an d older in th e labo r force Women with Child ren Under Ag e 18

Figure 1 The Labor Force Participation by Men, Women and Women with Children under 18. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The future of work-life fit 269

increase is even more apparent among men under 29, who now spend an average of 4.2 h/workday with their children. It is important to note that women have not reduced their time with children as men’s involvement has increased, and they continue to retain the lion’s share of responsibility for child care.

Taken together, these trends among men and women suggest that two major changes are coming to the U.S. workplace: (1) increasingly well-educated job applicants will be women and (2) men, not just women, are interested in flexible ways to work. Both of these changes point to one thing for organizations interested in attracting, recruiting and retaining the best talent and stemming the drop in ambition among both women and men — employers should provide work-life assistance to both men and women as an integral part of their talent development initiatives.

A UNIQUE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING CHANGING CAREER AMBITION, GENDER ROLES AND WORK-LIFE NEEDS: DELOITTE LLC

There are many ways to address men’s and women’s changing roles at work and at home. Overall, employers have tended to focus much more on women than men — in helping them advance by networking, providing mentors and role models, and in setting corporate standards for the number of women in senior management positions. In addition, work-life assis- tance has also been directed more at women than men. Very few companies have concentrated on both women and men or bundled their career advancement initiatives with work- life assistance. Deloitte, an audit, consulting, financial advi- sory and tax firm with 37,000 employees in the U.S., stands as

270 E. Galinsky, K. Matos

one of the very few exceptions to this pattern with its Mass Career Customization process (MCC). MCC has created a structured performance appraisal process for every employee and manager that considers the career aspirations of men and women of all ages in the context of their work, personal, and family responsibilities. Furthermore, by mak- ing this process universal, not just aimed at employees of specific ages or backgrounds, it has the potential to become the ‘‘new normal’’ way of doing business.

Like most companies, however, Deloitte, began this ‘‘human resource’’ journey concentrating on younger women and turnover. Sharon Allen, Chairman of the Board, describes their journey:

Nearly 20 years ago, many of the talented women that we had brought into our organization as future leaders were deciding to leave. At first, we assumed that they were staying home to raise their children — which is a perfectly acceptable alternative. But when we took the time to ask, they told us very clearly that what they needed were more mentors, more substantial and meaningful assignments — and, far greater flexibility. That marked a major turning point in our culture.

In response, Deloitte created a Women’s Initiative to help women have more mentors, better assignments, and more workplace flexibility. Sharon Allen recalls:

So began our Initiative for the Retention and Advancement of Women — what we commonly refer to as WIN. Its creation marked the beginning of our ‘‘culture’’ of flexi- bility. And, I don’t think it’s any coincidence that as our flexible workplace evolved, so did our ability to excel — so much so that Deloitte is now the largest private profes- sional services organization in the world.

But Deloitte continued to listen to employees, and their voices told of changing needs:

In making that journey, however, we also made an impor- tant discovery. It wasn’t just women who wanted greater flexibility. Men did, too. So we designed an equitable and scalable way to equip all of our people with options to grow their careers — in a way that helped them better fit their work into their lives and lives into their work.

As Deloitte LLC recognized the changing workforce trends, they acknowledged that ‘‘business as usual’’ was no longer an option, that not all employees wanted the same career progression — up or out — but rather wanted careers that provided opportunities to move up, down, or sideways at their own pace. According to Allen:

An old approach to career development — the ‘‘Corporate Ladder’’ model from the industrial era kept getting in our way. Its premise, that employees were essentially similar and, therefore, had similar needs, no longer fit new realities. So Deloitte adopted a much more agile ‘‘Corporate Lat- tice’’ that better fits the world we find ourselves in today. Just like plants on a garden trellis that can find growth up, across, diagonally, down and then back up again, our colleagues can choose to move their careers in many directions to align their career, personal needs, and

aspirations at varying points in time. The result is greater flexibility and a more customized talent experience for each of our colleagues.

As a part of every employee’s performance appraisal, the MCC process guides employees and their managers to make choices around four major dimensions of career progression — role, pace, location/schedule and workload, calibrating each based on their current aspirations and life circumstances. Since the system is modular, with the ability to personalize each arrangement at any point in time, the MCC is uniquely suited to a workplace where both men and women are looking to manage work and family. It also creates a template for managing new trends that may emerge in the future by avoiding an overly specific focus on any one group. Allen describes how this process works:

In collaboration with their manager, each of our collea- gues can choose to ‘‘dial up,’’ ‘‘dial down,’’ or pursue a more traditional path throughout different stages of their career... across the variables of pace, workload, location, schedule, and role. That doesn’t mean our people don’t work hard — they surely do. But MCC offers a new, scalable and flexible approach to today’s workplace realities — an approach that we believe ‘‘The Corporate Ladder’’ model can no longer provide with its never-ending pressures of ‘‘up or out.’’

Deloitte has benefitted, reaping positive business results since MCC was launched, beginning in 2008, including increased loyalty from employees, decreased workforce acquisition and retention costs and increased productivity through greater employee satisfaction and career fit. Allen says:

Satisfaction with career-life fit has increased 25 percent, and confidence in future career-life satisfaction has in- creased 28 percent. Furthermore, nearly 90 percent of our people report greater flexibility in when and where they work.

Deloitte has complimented the MCC with innovative leave programs to meet the lifecycle needs of their employees, whom they have found also require time off from work to become re-energized and refreshed. Recently announced are two voluntary sabbatical programs, a partially paid sabba- tical of 3—6 months for those pursuing external career development opportunities or volunteer experiences; and an unpaid sabbatical for those pursuing activities not covered by another formal leave program that allows individuals to maintain their benefits for four weeks. These sabbatical options enhance the flexibility of the MCC by allowing employees to take time to attend to developmental needs that can help position them for expansions or changes in their career or professional specialties. As a result, sabbaticals can be another way to help employees create career options that energize and engage them within Deloitte rather than trans- ferring to another company.

In our view, MCC is also responsive to the declining desire for jobs with more responsibility among men and women of all ages. The MCC addresses this trend — giving employees legitimate ways to dial down when they don’t want greater

2%

16%

48%

34%

2%

19%

51%

28%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Poor

Fair

Goo d

Excellent

2008 2002

Figure 3 Employees’ Self-assessment of Current State of Overall Health. Source: Families and Work Institute. 2002 NSCW (N = 2,810), 2008 NSCW (N = 2,764). Changes between survey years are statistically significant ( p < .001).

The future of work-life fit 271

responsibility, while still contributing, and then dial up when the time is right for them. Take a man who doesn’t want to travel so much following the birth of twins. In a career ladder company, he might have had to look for another job. Now, he can stay at Deloitte, contribute but in slightly different ways, and then move into a client-facing role requiring more travel as his children grow up. With MCC, Deloitte doesn’t lose the talent of employees like this man, but keeps them fully engaged in ways that benefit the company and the employees in both the short and long term.

CHALLENGE: THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF EMPLOYEES IS DECLINING, EMPLOYEES ARE EXPERIENCING A TIME FAMINE, AND MEN ARE EXPERIENCING MORE WORK-LIFE CONFLICT

Less than one-third of employees (28 percent) in 2008 say their overall health is ‘‘excellent’’ — a significant decline of 6 percent from 2002. In addition, more than one in five employ- ees (21 percent) say that their health is either fair or poor (Fig. 3).

These findings echo other indicators of health and well- being assessed in the 2008 NSCW. For example, we found that 21 percent of employees are currently receiving treatment for high blood pressure, that nearly half of all employees (49 percent) have not engaged in regular physical exercise in the past 30 days, one in four smokes, and that one in three shows signs of clinical depression. We also found that stress levels are rising. Between 2002 and 2008 the average stress level of the American workforce has increased significantly, and 41 percent of employees are now experiencing three or more of the five indicators of stressi sometimes, often or very often —

i The stress measure consists of five questions that measure how frequently respondents feel out of control of their lives and how stressful their personal lives, independent of work, have been in recent months.

a finding that does not bode well for the physical health of the American workforce.

Among the contributing factors to declining health and wellbeing is the nature of work. Employees increasingly report that their work is demanding and hectic — 73 percent of employees in 2008 report that their jobs require that they work fast compared with 55 percent in 1977. In addition, technology is eroding the boundaries between work and home life. Some researchers note how e-mail and telephone contacts with work during off hours can force employees to rapidly switch back and forth between work and family mindsets, which may disrupt their concentration on or the performance of tasks.

In addition, long work hours can contribute to declining health and wellbeing. Employees in the U.S. work long hours on average. According to the Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics, employees in 2009 worked 7.5 h on the days they were working, with men working longer (by 56 min) than women.

Along with long work hours and demanding jobs, feel- ings of job insecurity have increased. These three factors are linked with increased work-family conflictii among men, which has risen significantly over the past three decades. In 1977, the proportions of men and women reporting some or a lot of work-family conflict were similar (34 percent). Between then and now, men’s work-family conflict has gone up significantly to 49 percent in 2008, while women’s work-family conflict has not significantly changed.

This trend is most pronounced among employed fathers in dual-earner couples. In 1977, 35 percent reported experi- encing some or a lot of conflict. In 2008, 60 percent of fathers reported feeling some or a lot of conflict. Interest- ingly, we find that fathers work longer hours than men of the same age without children. When we examine the predic- tors of work-life conflict among fathers, we find that those

ii Work-life conflict is a ‘‘bi-directional’’ measure, reflecting both work interfering with life off the job and life off the job interfering with work.

55%

50%

66%

60%

63%

75%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

*Self

Spouse/Par tner

Chil dren

2008 1992

Not Enough Ti me to Spend wit h/on...

2002

Figure 4 Employees Experience of a Time Famine. Source: Families and Work Institute, 2008. National Study of the Changing Workforce. *These data are from 2002, the first year we asked this question. Changes between survey years are statistically significant ( p < .001).

272 E. Galinsky, K. Matos

who have less access to flexibility, who feel that there is jeopardy for using flexibility, and have less supportive supervisors and coworkers are the most likely to experience conflict.

The traditional male mystique would reflect the notion that men should seek fulfillment at work and strive to be successful as financial providers for their family. In light of changing social norms and converging gender roles, how- ever, we use the term ‘‘new male mystique’’ to describe how the combination of traditional views about men’s role as breadwinners and emerging egalitarian gender role values that encourage men to participate in family life have cre- ated pressure for men to, essentially, ‘‘do it all to have it all.’’ The ‘‘ideal’’ man today is not only a good employee working long hours to be a successful breadwinner, but also an involved and nurturing husband/partner, father and son. For many men, trying to reconcile these old and new roles is a struggle.

Along with these pressures that contribute to stress have come the feelings of a time famine, which have grown between 2002 and 2008 (Fig. 4). For example, 75 percent of employed parents feel they don’t have enough time to spend with their children.

Employees who don’t have sufficient time to care for themselves and their families will be more likely to show health problems. When employees feel that there isn’t enough time, they may also cut back on preventative care to attend to other demands, leaving themselves unprepared for illnesses that may have otherwise been prevented or managed. Finally stress can lead to a number of unhealthy habits such as poor diets, smoking and excessive drinking. Central to the trends we have discussed — increasing stress, work-family conflict, and feelings of a time famine — is the workplace has become more and more demanding. While some employers may think that little can be done to address these issues — ‘it’s just the way work and life are in the 21st

century and what we have to do to be competitive,’’ a few employers, including Ryan LLC, don’t agree. They feel that employers must address issues of work pressure, in order to be competitive.

A UNIQUE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING WORK PRESSURES: RYAN LLC

This challenge — declining health, increased feelings of a time famine and of work-family conflict — are all related to mounting job pressure. Yet for the most part, employers have treated these issues separately. For the declining health of American employees, employers have instituted wellness programs, encouraging employees to stop smoking, to eat better food, to exercise regularly, and to lose weight. For the time famine, employers have introduced or improved work- place flexibility and for work-family conflict, they have also promoted work-life assistance. Few companies have addressed work pressure directly, although there are excep- tions. For example, at Fenway & West LLP, a law firm in San Francisco, they have gone beyond wellness programs by having workflow coordinators and two ‘‘balanced hours advi- sors’’ who review attorney hours regularly to ensure that those on reduced schedules are not subject to ‘‘schedule creep’’ or overlooked for plum assignments. KPMG has cre- ated Wellness Scorecards to determine whether someone is working too much overtime or skipping vacation. Supervisors are encouraged to use these scorecards to monitor their people’s progress in taking better care of themselves. To promote taking vacations, they have created a National Vacation Challenge where employees submit photographs from their vacations and compete for prizes, including a voucher to help pay for the next vacation.

In our view, addressing this challenge of escalating job demands is going to take more than programs. It requires new ways of working. And not many companies have gone as far in changing the rules and providing new ways of working as Ryan LLC, the seventh largest corporate tax firm in the U.S. Calling himself a ‘‘lab rat’’ when he began to institute these changes, Brint Ryan, the co-founder and chief executive officer (CEO), describes the journey this company has taken:

I started the company in 1991 [with] another individual who felt like I was working him too hard and he retired. In

The future of work-life fit 273

that twenty-year period of time, we’ve grown from two people to approaching 1,000 people today. We serve primarily Fortune 500/Fortune 100 companies, solving complex tax problems, and I think by most measures, people would agree, that that’s a pretty successful track record.

We thought so too, but we started experiencing in 2007 a rapid increase in the loss of talent. And I’m not talking about just general talent — I’m talking about the stars. The tipping point for me was when one of our brightest and shining stars came into my office and said, ‘‘Brint, I love this company. I love my work here, and here’s my resig- nation.’’ I was shocked! She told me, ‘‘I want to start a family and it’s not conducive to the very rigid set of rules that you have at the company for me to be able to do that.’’

We realized we were developing a sweat-shop reputation in the industry and going exactly in the wrong direction from where we wanted to be. We were way behind the curve. We felt like we had to do something truly radical.

The change they created is called ‘‘myRyan,’’ which Ryan describes:

It’s a results-based work environment that says, if you meet financial results and you meet client service scores — we take those through independent surveys on an ongoing basis — you can work whenever you want, wherever you want. . . . Work when you’re most productive, when you’re most engaged. And we’ll change the culture to where what really matters are results. Hours don’t matter.

This approach was very radical, coming from a man who always worked long hours, nonstop. He describes his partners and himself as being ‘‘scared to death.’’ He says,

We really believed that there was a chance that the day after this program was announced nobody would show up to work. No client work would be done. If you don’t do the work, they will not pay your bills and we’d just close up shop and go home.

The real challenge they had was measuring results, and at first they weren’t sure how to do this.

We spent a lot of time developing a dashboard that all of our people can see everyday when they come into the office to find out where they’re at. The beauty of that is — although it’s difficult — that focus on measuring results crystallizes your thinking and makes people focus and concentrate on what’s important.

The results have been outstanding, as Ryan reports:

Our voluntary turnover rate in 2008, before we shifted to the myRyan program, was 18.5 percent. We reduced it in 2009 to 6.5 percent. Our total turnover rate was 22.9 percent — which is good in the financial services industry. It [went down] in 2009 to a total of 13.3 percent. After all, these are the most talented people we can recruit; we want to keep them. Our client service scores went to the

highest they’ve been in the history of our company: 97 percent of our clients ranked us either good or excellent in the performance of our services.

Probably the most remarkable statistic — the one that I think I would share if I had one thing to share with any CEO thinking about workplace flexibility — is this: in 2009, in arguably the worst economic conditions in my generation, we posted record profits and record revenue. And then again this year in 2010, we beat it again... So clearly, this has had a phenomenal impact from a financial perspec- tive. I’ll admit I’m a rabid capitalist: I didn’t go down this path just to provide another employee benefit, I wanted to make money.

Ryan says that initially he had used the firm’s success as a reason not to change, but he has learned that this can be an unacceptable excuse:

I have learned that workplace flexibility is much more than an employee benefit — it’s not like pizza on Fridays for the employees — it is an incredibility powerful business strategy.

CHALLENGE: EMPLOYEES INCREASINGLY EXPECT TO HAVE ‘‘RETIREMENT JOBS’’ AND HALF OF THE WORKFORCE WILL HAVE ELDER CARE RESPONSIBILITIES

There is no question that the workforce is aging. According to the NSCW, the percentage of employees 40 years-old and older was 39 percent in 1977 climbing to 68 percent in 2008. Furthermore, the largest projected growth in the labor force is among older employees, as shown in Fig. 5.

There has been much discussion about the impact that the retirement of Baby Boomers is expected to have on the economy, with its attendant losses in knowledge, expertise, and talent. It has become clear, however, that the aging of the workforce is not just a demographic phenomenon, and expectations about linear careers leading to retirement are as much in flux as are expectations about the early career years.

The 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce reveals that one in five employees aged 50 and older (20 percent) has fully retired from a job and then returned to work in what has been called a ‘‘retirement job’’. The reasons they give for taking retirement jobs are not just economic. While 53 percent say that they have returned to work to earn more money, 31 percent say they would be bored not working, and 18 percent say they want to feel productive, useful, and helpful. In addition, those working in retirement are working hard — on average for 33 h/week, compared with 42 h/week for those 50 and older who have never retired. Using a number of indicators, those working in retirement are highly engaged and satisfied with their work and rate their workplaces more positively than their age counterparts who have never retired. Finally and most impor- tantly, this phenomenon appears to be here to stay: 75 percent of those who are 50 and older say that they expect to have retirement jobs in the future. Phyllis Moen and

-6.9

2.4

36.5

83.4

84.3

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

16 to 24

25 to 54

55 to 64

65 to 74

75 and older

Percent change

Figure 5 Projected Percentage Change in Labor Force by Age, 2006—2016. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

274 E. Galinsky, K. Matos

Patricia Roehling argue that although many believe that work is a continuous climb up a career ladder with an eventual jump into retirement, this image does not fit the realities of most employees’ lives — a mismatch they call the ‘‘career mystique.’’

Another phenomenon that is occurring along with the aging workforce is the increased number of employees pro- viding elder care. In 2008, we found that 42 percent of employed Americans of all ages have provided special atten- tion or elder care for a relative or in-law 65 years old or older in the past five years — helping with things that were difficult or impossible for them to do themselves. From our data it appears that these responsibilities are not particularly light, with almost half of the elder care providers (44 percent) having responsibility for assisting two or more people. Addi- tionally many of these caregivers (46 percent of women and 40 percent of men) also have children under the age of 18 at home.

While some may be tempted to address elder care issues in much the same way they do child care, we find that such an approach would be misguided. Elder care is a somewhat gender neutral phenomenon, with women (20 percent) and men (22 percent) being equally likely to have provided family care in the past five years and equally likely to provide care at the current time (9 percent vs. 8 percent). Where we do find gender differences is not in who provides care but what kind of care they provide. For example, women are more likely than men (44 percent vs. 38 percent) to provide family care on a regular basis rather than on an intermittent basis. In addition, women spend more time (9.1 h a week) providing care than men (5.7 h/week).

Merchants Bank is among the employers that have responded to the rise in elder care responsibilities in a way that meets the needs of both men and women. In addition to offering paid time off to employees, Merchants Bank has created an Employee Leave Bank where staff can donate their unused vacation time to others facing personal emergencies, enabling employees to take up to eight weeks of paid time off. The ability to stretch out a period of care is valuable for employees with intermittent but intense periods of caregiving responsibilities. Vinson & Elkins, a law firm, offers support for employees who have more consistent elder care responsibilities by providing back-up elder care in a

center or at home during an emergency. These employers and others find better results in programs that incorporate a diversity of options and allow employees to access the options that best enable them to contribute to both their employer and their loved ones. Since just under half of the workforce (49 percent) expects to be providing family care for an elder in the coming five years, employers would do well to consider how they will respond to an aging workforce, both in terms of postretirement careers and elder care.

A UNIQUE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING THE AGING WORKFORCE AND ELDER CARE: BON SECOURS HEALTH SYSTEM

There are many approaches to dealing with the aging work- force and the increasing responsibility that employees have for elder care. According to FWI’s 2008 NSE, the most com- mon are time off (75 percent) and providing information (31 percent). The organization in our view that has taken the most comprehensive approach to these issues, however, is Bon Secours Health System with 20,000 employees in the U.S.

Bon Secours — meaning ‘‘good help’’ in French — was founded in Paris after the French Revolution by Catholic nuns who defied tradition by caring for sick and dying compatriots in their own homes. The Sisters of Bon Secours came to the U.S. in 1881 and built a multi-state health care organization. Bonnie Shelor, the senior vice president of Bon Secours Richmond Health Systems, says that the past has continued to guide their values, mission, and vision. Today, this includes the fact that the Sisters of Bon Secours are aging themselves:

Many of the Sisters are 50 plus and continue to work with us until they are no longer physically able. They serve as leaders for our health care ministry well into their 80s and 90s providing strategic direction and guidance, including serving on our board of directors and leading the decision- making body. For us, workers of this age are common, and their vision, wisdom and contributions are celebrated.

In addition, the overall Bon Secours workforce is aging, with nearly 40 percent of their workforce in Richmond aged 50 and older. She tells the story of one such employee, Hattie Davis. Shelor says:

The future of work-life fit 275

Hattie has a sparkle and style that light up a room. For someone turning 89 in August, she doesn’t look a day over 60. Hattie shines when she talks about her distinction as Bon Secours Richmond’s oldest employee. She [is] a private-duty nurse with her two-day-a-week job in Employee Wellness; she’s alsoa regular volunteer in one of our hospital gift shops.

Shelor continues:

Across Bon Secours Virginia, we have many dedicated employees like Hattie — who keep me and my Human Resources team focused on creating a work environment that attracts, values and retains our 50+ workers.

Bon Secours, like many of those in the health services industry, has looked ahead and seen that this trend will continue:

Our nation is currently facing a nursing shortage that will reach severe levels by 2015. The incoming generation of workers in America is 6 percent smaller than the genera- tion that is retiring. At the same time, people are living longer, healthier lives. And the majority of U.S. workers are interested in delaying retirement.

Among the initiatives they offer are flexible schedules, job sharing, telecommuting and compressed workweeks. Managers are encouraged to work with employees who are interested in these options, and have license to be inventive in crafting solutions. For example, employees caring for dependents (their children, their grandchildren, or their elders), can move from full- to part-time to on-call status and back in most job categories without penalty. Compressed workweek options include four 10-h shifts or three 12-h shifts/week. Other shift options include: weekends only with an enhanced rate of pay; four-hour shifts, eight-hour shifts or 12-h shifts; and seven days on, seven days off. All benefits — including tuition reimburse- ment and employer-assisted housing — are available to employ- ees who work at least 16 h/week, effective on their start date.

Bon Secours is redefining retirement, including creating retirement jobs — so employees don’t have to leave the organization to find the jobs they want. Shelor outlines three options:

Option No. 1 allows employees to cut back to part-time (working less than 24 h/week) and continue to receive a pension check. Option No. 2 allows employees older than 70 to begin receiving their retirement check the following April, re- gardless of their employment status. Option No. 3 allows an employee to retire and then be rehired at a later date while still collecting her retirement

Table 1 Effective Workplace Dimensions Significantly Predicting

Greater Engagement Greater Job Satisf

1. Job challenge and learning 1. Economic secur 2. Climate of respect 2. Work-life fit 3. Autonomy 3. Climate of resp 4. Work-life fit 4. Autonomy 5. Economic security 5. Supervisor task 6. Supervisor task support 6. Job challenge a

Source: Families and Work Institute. 2008 NSCW (N = 2,470—2,769).

check. An employee younger than age 65 who has retired must leave employment for three months before return- ing. Upon returning, the employee would continue to receive the same level of retirement and also would be eligible for medical, dental and vision coverage and other valuable perks, like tuition reimbursement, if he or she works a minimum of 16 h/week.

In addition, Bon Secours focuses on the health of their employees, including their older employees:

We offer the opportunity for employees to take a health risk assessment through Employee Wellness. As a result, among our older workers we consistently see improve- ments in areas such as cancer, fitness, nutrition, stress, substance abuse, safety and heart health. This translates into innumerable cost savings — direct and avoidance costs. But more important, Employee Wellness becomes a retention tool, because we’re giving employees an opportunity to help themselves.

One of their most interesting solutions involves reducing the amount that nurses have to lift. Studies show that nurses on average lift up to 6,600 pounds/day, but not at Bon Secours. The lift teams use state-of-the-art equipment to reposition or lift patients, which has reduced patient hand- ling injuries and the costs associated with those, while at the same time, increasing nursing satisfaction. In addition, they have created other programs such as lunches for the older employees with the CEO to listen to their concerns and encore jobs which allow employees to volunteer. In addition:

We have an intergenerational initiative called ‘‘Grand- Partners’’ that pairs employees’ children in our day care with elderly friends, employees or spouses of employees.

Shelor asks that we consider the words of Hattie Davis in thinking about the journey that Bon Secours is on: Davis says:

I am the oldest employee at Bon Secours Richmond. I’ve spent my entire career here and I don’t have any plans of stopping soon. As long as I am able, I will keep on working.

SEVERAL CAVEATS: WORK-LIFE FIT INITIATIVES MUST BE ONLY ONE COMPONENT OF AN EFFECTIVE WORKPLACE AND MUST BE BROADLY DEFINED

The case studies we have described all focus on work-life fit, but if these initiatives existed in companies where there

Work Outcomes Rank-ordered by Relative Importance.

action Greater Probability of Retention

ity 1. Economic security 2. Work-life fit

ect 3. Job challenge and learning 4. Supervisor task support

support 5. Autonomy nd learning

Table 2 Effective Workplace Dimensions Significantly Predicting Health Outcomes Rank-Ordered By Relative Importance.

Better Overall Health Less Frequent Minor Health Problems

Fewer Signs of Depression

Less Frequent Sleep Problems

Lower Stress Level

1. Economic security 1. Economic security 1. Economic security 1. Economic security 1. Economic security 2. Work-life fit 2. Autonomy 2. Autonomy 2. Work-life fit 2. Work-life fit

3. Work-life fit 3. Work-life fit 3. Autonomy 3. Autonomy 4. Job challenge

and learning 4. Job challenge and

learning 4. Supervisor task

support

Source: Families and Work Institute. 2008 NSCW (N = 2,471—2,769).

Table 3 What is Flexibility?

Choices in managing time

� Control over one’s schedule � Ensuring that the schedule or shift meets one’s needs

Flex time and flex place

� Traditional flexibility (control over when the work day begins and ends) � Daily flexibility (short-notice schedule changes) � Compressed workweeks � Working at home

Reduced time

� For full-timers, being able to work part time in their current position � For part-timers, being able to work full time in their current position � Work part-year

Time off

� Being able, without difficulty, to take time for personal or family matters � At least five paid days off for personal illness � At least five paid days off to care for sick children � Time off for elder care without fear of losing one’s job � Paid vacation time � Paid holiday time off � Time off for volunteering without the loss of pay � Maternity leave � Paternity leave

Flex careers

� Phasing into retirement: working reduced hours over a period of time prior to full retirement � Taking sabbaticals: (un)paid leaves of six months or more and returning to a comparable job � Taking (un)paid time away from work for education or training to improve job skills � Taking extended career breaks for caregiving or other personal or family responsibilities � Receiving special consideration when returning after an extended career break

The culture of flexibility

� Not having to choose between advancement and devoting attention to family life � Not jeopardizing advancement by asking for flexibility � Having overall supervisor support when work-life issues arise

Source: Families and Work Institute, 2011.

276 E. Galinsky, K. Matos

were huge tensions with supervisors, where employees had few opportunities to learn, or little autonomy on the job, they would not yield the results that they do. Addressing the challenges we have posed must take place in what FWI calls ‘‘effective workplaces’’ for these initiatives to produce results.

To be truly effective, a workplace — its design, practices and policies — must benefit both the organization and its employees. Over the past six years, FWI has engaged in a research journey of its own to define the elements that make up effective workplaces. Based on our latest nationally representative study of the U.S. workforce, the 2008 NSCW, we have identified six criteria of effective workplaces that include both work and nonwork factors, all of which benefit both the employee and the organization. They are (1) Job Challenge and Learning; (2) Supervisor Task Support; (3) Job Autonomy; (4) Climate of Respect and Trust; (5) Economic Security, and (6) Work-Life Fit. Below we provide descriptions of the factors in our effective workplace scale.

Workplaces with a high degree of job challenge and learning provide the opportunity for employees to practice and develop their skills, to do meaningful work and to con- tinue to learn. Ideally employees learn skills and knowledge that position them to not only advance but also to make lateral moves to different departments or specialties creat- ing flexible and dynamic career paths or what we call flex careers.

Supervisor task support means that supervisors are sup- portive when employees have work problems, they recognize employees when they do a good job, and they keep employ- ees informed of what they need to know. Employees with a high degree of supervisor task support have a rich information exchange with their supervisors about how to best execute their job goals. This can help employees to focus their efforts on the right job tasks and can minimize busy work that adds to job demands.

Similar to the supervisor task support, a climate of respect and trust helps maintain two-way communication. The dif- ference is that a respectful climate is less about the content of the conversation and more about the trust between the employee and the supervisor, where the employee feels his or her supervisor is ethical. For supervisors to support their employees, both sides must be willing to take a risk, and to share information with each other to further what they can accomplish together. In this kind of environment, supervisors solicit new ideas and new solutions from employees.

Contrary to some employers’ fears, autonomy does not represent giving employees free-reign to do as they will. Instead it represents an employee’s ability to make deci- sions without confirming each aspect of the decision with a

The future of work-life fit 277

supervisor because there is mutual respect, responsibility, and accountability.

Economic security includes satisfaction with one’s pay, benefits, and opportunities to advance. Similar to low auton- omy, low economic security acts to undermine positive investments and engagement in the workplace.

The final component in our conceptual model of an effec- tive workplace, work-life fit, represents the degree of super- visor and coworker support for employees to manage their work, personal and family responsibilities. We measure the degree to which employees feel that their supervisors care about the effect of work on their personal or family life, are responsive when they have work-life problems, and provide flexibility. Like the other ingredients of an effective work- place, work-life fit is seen not as a right, but as a responsi- bility and opportunity for the employee and the manager to find solutions that work for both.

We have investigated how the above ingredients of an effective workplace affect outcomes of concern to employers (engagement, job satisfaction, and retention) and employees (health and well-being) and find that there are strong sta- tistical links.

We then wondered which are the most predictive and rank-ordered them by their predictive power. As shown in Table 1, work-life fit ranks fourth in predicting engage- ment and second in predicting job satisfaction and reten- tion.

Table 2 reveals that work-life fit ranks second as a pre- dictor of overall health, fewer sleep problems and lower stress. It is third in predicting fewer minor health problems and fewer signs of depression.

Thus work-life fit must be considered one — albeit an important one — of the ingredients that benefit employers and employees and not as a single magic bullet. As the two tables above show, in a world where the economy is so volatile, economic security trumps all other factors in pre- dicting outcomes for employees.

As we have said, work-life fit, when broadly defined, includes workplace flexibility. At FWI, we define work-life fit as including the following types of flexibility as well as

0.14

0.1

0.19

0.23

0.23

0.2

0 0.3

*** Low frequency o f sleep prob lems

*** Low general stre ss level

*** No indi cat ors o f depre ssion

*** Low fr equ ency of minor health prob lems

*** Exc ell ent overal l health

High o verall effec�venes s Moderate o ver a

Figure 6 Relationships Between Overall Effectiveness and Positiv NSCW (N = 2,243—2,295); statistically significant differences are de Significant). For the items that comprise the effective workplace sc

whether or not there is support or jeopardy for using such flexibility (Table 3).

CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF WORK-LIFE FIT RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Although attitudes and values have moved beyond the notion of the ‘‘ideal worker,’’ who works full-time and overtime throughout his or her career and takes little or no time off for family care, FWI’s research reveals that so-called ideal work- ers and the most advantaged workers are the most likely to have access to workplace flexibility — men, married employ- ees, employees who are better educated, who are salaried, who are managers and professionals, full-timers, employees in the service industries, and those with higher wages.

Perhaps surprisingly, FWI’s analyses of the flexibility offered to employees in dozens of industries and cohorts conducted for the Department of Labor Women’s Bureau reveal that workplace flexibility can level the playing field between more and less advantaged employees. Taking low- wage employees as an example, we find that although they tend to be less satisfied with their jobs, less likely to plan to remain with their current employers and to have poorer physical and mental health than higher wage employees, having greater flexibility on the job substantially reduces these differences between low-wage and higher wage employees.

Our recommendation for change is a bold one, but one that is in keeping with the profound impact that flexible and effective workplaces have on the health, well-being and productivity of our human resources in this country, as shown in Fig. 6.

We recommend that all employers include a section in their annual reports and websites where they describe what they are doing to address the health and wellbeing of their employees both at work and at home. This report must go beyond health and wellness efforts (such as healthy eating, exercise, smoking cessation) and include how they are creat-

0.51

0.42

0.69

0.56

8

0.32

0.34

0.84

0.67

0.38

0.6 0.9

ll effec�veness Low overall effec�veness

e Health Outcomes. Source: Families and Work Institute. 2008 noted as *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, n.s. (Not Statistically ale see footnotes i and ii.

278 E. Galinsky, K. Matos

ing a work environment that promotes wellbeing, including how they are addressing job demands and how they are providing learning opportunity, better supervisor-supervisee relationships, a culture of respect and trust, and work-life fit, etc. Going even further, we would have investors require employers to report on what they are doing to improve the workplace health and wellbeing of their workforces in much the same way that they have always reported on business outcomes. The goal is not to provide a laundry list of employee benefit programs, but to present a human capital management strategy that will leverage the organization’s human resources toward greater success. Such a transition is in keeping with increasing interest in the organizational triple bottom line of people, planet and profits. These reports would expand the currently available information on the effects of organizational activities, such as carbon footprints and corporate social responsibility efforts. If we monitor the health and wellbeing of our human resources the way we monitor the health of our environmental resources, we could create more and more workplaces that promote the

engagement, job satisfaction, retention, health and work- life fit of employees.

Imagine a U.S. workplace where a majority of employees are over 40, where employees of all ages place greater value on work-life flexibility than on work stature or responsibility, and where most can work anytime and anyplace. The evi- dence we report here shows that this is no imaginary world, but indeed represents the reality for many organizations in the world today, and is quite likely to describe the future for your organization as well as your clients, competitors and suppliers.

The evidence is clear. The employers that address these challenges will be the winners not only in the hearts and minds of their employees but also in the marketplace.

The future of work-life fit 279

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

In this article we illustrate many of our points by present- ing key research findings. Interested readers can find out more about gender and work issues in R. Rapoport and R. N. Rapoport, Dual-Career Families (New York: Penguin Books, 1971), P. B. Doeringer, P.B., K. Christensen, P. M. Flynn, and D. T. Hall, Turbulence in the American Work- place (Oxford University Press, 1991), R. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1977), and J. Williams, Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What To Do About It (Oxford University Press, 2000).

Additional information about the nature and history of workplace flexibility is available in S. B. Kamerman and A. J. Kahn, The Responsive Workplace: Employers and a Changing Labor Force (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), B. Olmstead and S. Smith, Creating a Flexible Workplace: How to Select and Manage Alternative Work Options (New York, AMACOM, 2000), K. Christensen and B. Schneider, (Eds.), Workplace flexibility: Realigning 20th century jobs for a 21st century workforce (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 2010), P. Moen and P. Roehling, The Career Mystique: Cracks in the American Dream (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2004).

Interested readers can learn more about issues of retire- ment and post retirement work and life in K. Dychtwald and D. J. Kadlec, A New Purpose: Redefining Money, Family, Work, Retirement, and Success (New York, Harper Paper- backs, 2010) and T. Erickson, Retire Retirement: Career Strategies for the Boomer Generation (Boston: Harvard Busi- ness School Press, 2008).

Additional information about the effects of crossing work- life boundaries can be found in P. Glavin, S. Schieman, S. Reid, ‘‘Boundary-Spanning Work Demands and Their Conse- quences for Guilt and Psychological Distress,’’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 2011, 52(1), 43—57.

More information about the first iteration of the National Study of Employers can be found in R. P. Quinn and G. L. Staines, The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey: Descriptive Statistics, with Comparison Data from the 1969—70 and the 1972—73 Surveys (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 1979).

Educational statistics and future projections are pub- lished by the National Center for Education Statistics and made publicly available on their Web site: http://nces.ed. gov/quicktables/.

Labor force participation statistics and future projections are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and made publicly available on their website http://www.bls.gov/ webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm.

Readers interested in additional findings form FWI’s nationally representative surveys (the National Study of Employers and the National Study of the Changing Workforce) can review the following FWI reports: K. Aumann and E. Galinsky, The State of Health in the American Workforce (New York: Families and Work Institute, 2009); K. Aumann and E. Galinsky, Men’s World in the United States: The New Male Mystique (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, forthcoming); M. Brown, K. Aumann, M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. Galinsky, and J. T. Bond, Working in Retirement: A 21st Century Phenomenon (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, 2010); J. T. Bond and E. Galinsky, Workplace Flex- ibility and Low Wage Employees (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, 2011); E. Galinsky and J. T. Bond, The 1998 Business Work-Life Study (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, 1998); E. Galinsky and A. Johnson, Reframing the Business Case for Work-life Initiatives (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, 1998); E. Galinsky, K. Aumann, and J. T. Bond, Times are Changing: Gender and Generation at Work and at Home (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, 2009); E. Galinsky, J. T. Bond, and K. Sakai, 2008 National Study of Employers (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, 2008); E. Galinsky, D. Friedman, and C. Hernandez, The Corporate Reference Guide to Work-Family Programs (New York, NY: The Families and Work Institute, 1991); E. Galinsky, K. Sakai, and T. Wigton, 2011 Guide to Bold New Ideas for Making Work Work (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, 2011); E. Galinsky, K. Sakai, Workplace Flexibility in the Health Services Industry (New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, 2011). These and other FWI reports can be found or requested from the FWI Website: http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/main.html.

The information presented in the IBM case study can be found in J. R. Macdonald, Work Life Legacy Award Interview with IBM’s Senior Vice President of Human Resources (Armonk, NY: April 7, 2005). The case studies on Deloitte and Ryan, LLC, can be found in S. Allen, Moving Work Forward Press Conference (Washington, DC: February 1, 2011) and B. Ryan, Moving Work Forward Press Conference (Washington, DC: February 1, 2011). Video recordings of these speeches can be viewed online at http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=_ieAx46s0vE (Sharon Allen) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27H4Oz5gPaw&feature= relmfu (Brint Ryan). The case study on Bon Secours was originally presented at the Senate Finance Committee Hearing: ‘‘The Next Chapter: Choosing to Work beyond Retirement’’ on Thursday, July 15, 2010. A full transcript is available at http://finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ 071510bstest.pdf.

280 E. Galinsky, K. Matos

Ellen Galinsky, president and co-founder of Families and Work Institute (FWI), helped establish the field of work and family life during her 25 years at Bank Street College of Education. She co-directs the National Study of the Changing Workforce and the National Study of Employers. She has published many academic articles and books. Her latest book is Mind in the Making: The Seven Essential Life Skills Every Child Needs (Tel.: +1 212 465 2344; fax: +1 212 465 8637; [email protected]).

Kenneth Matos, Ph.D., a senior research associate at FWI, is responsible for reporting on trends found in FWI’s ongoing nationally representative studies — the National Study of Employers and the National Study of the Changing Workforce. His previous research on work-life issues for military members and their families has been presented to military policy offices and Congress (Tel.: +1 212 716 1846; fax: +1 212 465 8637; [email protected]).