ICO Kim Woods

Connectivity and work dominance: Panacea or pariah?

Charles R. Stoner *, Paul Stephens, Matthew K. McGowan

Foster College of Business Administration, Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61625, U.S.A.

Business Horizons (2009) 52, 67—78

www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor

KEYWORDS Work/life balance; Work-connecting technologies; Work domination; Young managers and professionals; Impact of technology

Abstract Does technologically-supported work connectivity help young managers and professionals under the age of 45 deal with the pressing demands of their work, or does the presence of work-connecting technologies exacerbate the tendencies of this talent force to engage in more work and longer working hours? Utilizing both surveys and follow-up focus group interactions, this study found that while work-connecting technologies permitted a greater range of options regarding when and where work was done, this same connectivity provided constant availability to work and often drove expectations that more must be done, thereby increasing the likelihood of longer work hours and–—surprisingly–—leading to a diminished sense of flexibility. Study participants offer insights regarding the thought processes behind these outcomes. Perspectives on how emerging leaders and their organizations can effectively manage and achieve the potential of enhanced connectivity are provided. A four-phased approach is recommended. First, we discuss key cultural dynamics. Second, the role of organizational expectations and practices is emphasized. Third, we consider a set of responsibilities for organizational leaders, whose actions and cues provide the most vivid clarity for young managers attempting to decide where to draw the work/life balance line. Finally, the challenge and responsibility of personal accountability is presented. Consideration of a work paradigm that reorients our thinking about traditional ‘‘face time,’’ and strives to bridge the gap between the potential and pervasive impact of work-connecting technologies, is also included. # 2008 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. All rights reserved.

1. Being wired: How much is enough?

The boundaries between work and other areas of life have always been amorphous for upwardly mobile managers and professionals. In recent years, many members of this talent force–—observing the lessons of previous generations–—have vowed to never let

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.R. Stoner).

0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2008 Kelley School of Business, I doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2008.08.003

their lives be dominated by work. In general, these intentions have not been realized.

The evidence is clear that today’s managers and professionals are not only working far more than previous generations, but are also experiencing the ‘‘sting of reality,’’ with work demands increasingly spilling into and overshadowing family and personal time (MacInnis, 2005; Pruitt & Rapoport, 2002; Schor,1992).Not surprisingly,thebest andthebright- est (i.e., the highest achieving knowledge workers)

ndiana University. All rights reserved.

68 C.R. Stoner et al.

Table 1. Work-connecting technologies (WCT)

The study identified 14 work-connecting technologies (WCT). This table lists each work-connecting technology and the percentage of respondents that indicated the technology is available for use through their organization.

Connectivity technology Provided by organization

Voice mail 89% Electronic mail 88% Fax 86% Computer 82% Access to organizational files 81% Access to organizational

information systems 76%

Cell phone 63% Teleconferencing 58% Instant messaging 30% Web conferencing 29% Video conferencing 25% PDA 21% Pager 21% Groupware 13%

appear to be most dramatically touched by this pattern of work domination (Lewis & Dyer, 2002; Reich, 2000). For a variety of reasons, which we will explore, the members of this critical talent force believe they must work more. Consequently, they are experiencing the confusion and disappointment of succumbing to a work-dominated life, an outcome viewed as unacceptable but strangely unprevent- able.

Youngprofessionalsmaybeparticularlyvulnerable to, and most affected by, the complex interactions of work domination. In many cases, work and family demands are conspiring toward a perfect storm of competing time commitments for young profession- als in their mid-20s through early 40s. In terms of work, their roles are typically in transition, as they have progressed in their respective areas of technical expertise to assume new roles of leadership. Increas- ingly, they are serving in team leader and first-line management positions, or are assuming various lead- ership roles with similar technical experts. At the same time, they often have families with young children and, accordingly, are experiencing a height- ened sense of familial obligations. While they have, no doubt, always held an intellectual understanding of the work/family tradeoffs that are necessary with career advancement, they are now directly and per- sonally experiencing the reality of those tradeoffs for the first time.

Further, evidence suggests a heightened sensitivi- ty toward work/life concerns among our younger talent force. Socially, expressed work/life values have changed. Successful, young professionals–—gen- erally, those under 40–—are turning away from a culture of work domination, placing family at the top of their work/life priorities and designating bal- ance as their top-rated career value (Lockwood, 2003; Whitehead, 1999). Many members of this set have vowed to avoid the pattern of work domination exhibited by their parents’ generation, seeing it as debilitating to personal, family, and social health. Our current generation of talent even seems willing to opt out of career advancement, due to the crush- ing impact they believe it would exact on their lives (Association of Executive Search Consultants, 2006). Inshort,thelevelofsacrificethat youngprofessionals are willing to make in the name of career success appears to have shifted and changed. Contemporary organizations, already lean on leadership talent, may pay the ultimate price if their best young talent chooses not to pursue positions of career advance- ment.

Progressive organizations are sensitive to these needs, and most have responded through an array of life-balance and family-friendly initiatives. In this regard, one promising path of remediation has been

the expanded use of technology and a deeper reli- ance on technological connectivity.

Technological connectivity goes by many names, including mobile technology (Towers, Duxbury, Higgins, & Thomas, 2006) and work extension tech- nologies (Espis, 2005). Herein, we use the term work-connecting technologies due to its clarity and simplicity. Further, work connectivity does not imply, a priori, that work is necessarily extended, regardless of the frequency with which this outcome occurs. Work-connecting technologies (WCT) commonly in- clude everything from cell phones, BlackBerrys, PDAs, and faxes, to e-mail, laptops, pagers, and the Internet. In fact, according to our study, the most common forms of WCT, by far, were cell phones, laptops, and the Internet (see Table 1). However, WCTalso include lesser-utilized but increasingly rel- evant options such as teleconferencing, video con- ferencing, and Web conferencing. The current ubiquity of these technologies is an indication that the use of WCT has proliferated over the last generation.

Indeed, WCT have enabled many businesses to cross a new threshold of connectivity in the past 3-5 years. Technologies have become more porta- ble, have more features, are easier to use, and are more widely available than ever before. For exam- ple, in 2005, the annual sales of laptop computers exceeded that of desktop computers for the first time (Kanellos, 2006). Laptops provide an easy way to bring work home. E-mail, which once required

Connectivity and work dominance: Panacea or pariah? 69

special software, is now readily available through Web-based interfaces. Although attaching a file to an e-mail message once required users to learn file transfer protocol (FTP), attachments can now be facilitated with the simple click of a button. Con- necting to work from home used to entail a phone line and slow dial-up; today, high-speed interfaces provide connectivity that is quite easy and fast. Attesting to the popularity of this technology, the percentage of homes with high speed broadband access to the Internet jumped from 33% in February 2003 to 68% in February 2006 (Nielsen/Net Ratings, 2006). Now, homes are equipped with wireless net- works that allow parents to connect to work while their children research homework assignments online. Importantly, connectivity away from the workplace is not limited to home. Connectivity through wireless connections is now as close as the corner coffee shop. Not only are WCT simpler and omnipresent for many knowledge workers; we must also keep in mind that members of the younger generation of workers have grown up in the presence of connectivity and generally need little training to use it.

Fundamentally, WCTare facilitative; that is, they enable or facilitate the user in achieving options regarding how, when, and where work is performed. In fact, WCT have altered the range and domain of work so profoundly that a significant portion of to- day’s work is bound by neither time nor place. Yet, the ever-expanding use of WCT creates a new set of challenges, issues, and questions. How have these technologies affected the work and lives of young managers and professionals? Do WCT help one better control the complexities of life, or do they provide a convenient mechanism for working more, therefore furtherblurringthelines betweenworkandnon-work realms of life? Are managers and professionals helped or hurt–—from both career and personal perspectives–—by the proliferation of connectivity? And, perhaps most critically, how can individuals and organizations best utilize WCT to achieve the stron- gest benefits for all? As regards most behavioral issues, perspectives are complex, idiosyncratic, and somewhat paradoxical. Discourse, based on sound evidence and careful reflection, is needed. The purpose of this study is to offer research and review that stimulates and contributes to this discourse.

2. Framing the argument: Flexibility and work domination

One may argue that work-connecting technologies provide a means for easing many of the traditional

boundary struggles of life, particularly those between work and family. In fact, ‘‘the professed aim of the employer in providing the kind of tech- nology that allows people to work at home is that it helps achieve a good work/life balance by permit- ting flexibility’’ (Towers et al., 2006, p. 598).

The issue of flexibility appears to be critical. Studies suggest that the presence of flexibility can generate positive outcomes for both organiza- tions and individuals. For example, there is reason- ably strong evidence that flexible time policies are related to increased organizational loyalty and com- mitment (Perrons, 2003). Further, some research indicates that flexibility allows individuals to inte- grate and overlap work and family responsibilities, leading to positive spillover and improved percep- tions of work/life balance (Galinsky, Bond, & Fried- man, 1993; Towers et al., 2006). In short, when WCT facilitate the when and where of existing and steady levels of work, individual, and family balance out- comes are more likely to be achieved.

Much, however, turns on the matter of ‘‘existing and steady levels of work.’’ As noted above, if the levels and demands of work remain constant, adding the flexibility of WCT promises to help young pro- fessionals arrange a more manageable life. Yet, a gnawing question remains: What happens if WCT serve as the means for increasing the level of work?

Many observers do, in fact, believe the presence of WCT options expand the amount of work that man- agers and professionals are expected to accomplish. The logic here must be carefully denoted. Work- connecting technologies, isolated by themselves, need not increase the absolute amount of work to bedone. Yet,as a facilitative agent providing broader and easier access to work, WCT may affect the amount or level of work that one is expected to perform over a given period of time. Thus, at the employee level, work additions can be experienced.

Closely related is the impact on work/life balance. WCT provide the mechanics for perpetuating a blur- ring of the boundaries between work and family. Again, technology may not be the real culprit. Yet, offering a plethora of connectivity options to career-oriented professionals can foster a belief that constant tethering to available technology is funda- mental to competitive success. Here, WCT options may provide more temptation than an assertive fast- tracker can resist, and the outcome is increased work domination.

Consequently, at the most basic level, WCTallow work to more easily permeate the non-work (par- ticularly family) areas of life. At the extreme, WCT lead individuals to longer hours of work and in- creased organizational focus. In either case, WCT may be a tool for diminishing rather than enhancing

70 C.R. Stoner et al.

the life-balance needs of contemporary managers and professionals (Higgins & Duxbury, 2001).

Certainly, individuals who have positioned them- selves in a management career track realize that as they accept the benefits of managerial positions, they must also be willing to commit more work and longer hours to the organization. This is a commonly held and reasonably accepted norm within most firms. In addition, a traditional cultural theme of the management track is that one demonstrates commitment to the organization through ‘‘face time’’ at work. Here, work-connecting technologies can create cultural confusion for the user by polariz- ing the issue of face time. Organizational tradition- alists typically feel that high levels of face time are necessary for managers to do their jobs effectively. Accordingly, they see work-connecting technologies as restricting results by reducing face time. Recent research seems to confirm this view. For example, a survey of 150 seniorexecutivesfrom the1,000largest companies in the U.S. revealed that the senior exec- utives feel upwardly mobile managers should be in the office, and not working from home (New Orleans CityBusiness, 2006). These executives believe that effective management requires being available to staff who need guidance on projects. Thus, the as- sumption emerged that availability was not possible for managers working off-site.

These perceptions and points of confusion are understandable. When new technology is intro- duced, it often attempts to mimic current non- technological processes. This transition can hurt both the quality and robustness of the activity. Some people feel restricted by this phenomenon. Yet, others feel enabled by the emergence of the tech- nology and are willing to allow the technology time to improve. It is important to recognize that WCT can enable availability, but in a different manner than the norm. There is a faction within the mana- gerial ranks that does not equate face time with success, and which accepts that more work may be done when individuals are not at the workplace. In other words, this faction (sometimes referred to as technologists) believes that a commitment to work and high levels of performance can be achieved regardless of face time. Van Dyne, Kossek, and Lobel (2007) argue that reduced face time need not be a negative aspect of flexible work arrangements. Spe- cifically, these authors present a model of work group processes whereby reduced face time posi- tively affects work group outcomes. In fact, Van Dyne and colleagues demonstrate several tactics that can be used to offset the perceived negativeeffectsofdecreasedface time.Asonemight expect,WCTarecitedascontributingtoreducedface time, but at the same time are presented as enablers

behind the tactics which can offset the negative effects of reduced face time. Technologists see WCT as tools which allow flexibility, and which can enable the maintenance of face time.

There may be a fundamental shift occurring in the workplace as values change in regard to the use of technology. As discussed earlier, WCT appear to represent a generational flashpoint in the work- place. Largely, the ranks of upper management are filled with people who have spent the majority of their working careers without WCT. However, a generation of young managers has been raised sur- rounded by technological innovations that represent new ways of communicating, networking, and en- hancing personal productivity.

3. What we found: The bases for more work

According to our findings, the availability of work- connecting technologies allowed study participants (profiled in Table 2) to spend more hours working at home or from other remote locations. This result was not unexpected and was consistent with previous studies which have indicated that employees working at home spend a higher percentage of their time on paid work activities (Higgins & Duxbury, 2001).

Of special note was the intensity and non-equiv- ocation expressed by our participants. They ex- plained that the presence of WCT absolutely led to an increase in the total hours worked. However, they were careful and objective enough to realize that WCT provided them with the means or capacity to work more only if they chose to do so:

When [work-connecting technologies were] first rolled out, I thought this was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I’m going to increase flexibility and get to be able to do a lot of things from home, and take advantage of possible weekends under a time crunch. What I found out was, it’s almost like a ball and chain. It really is.

It becomes a lot more difficult because what you end up saying is, ‘‘O.K., there’s just one little thing I gotta get done before Monday.’’ But what happens? That one little thing turns into 4, 5, 6, 10, 20 things. Before you know it, there’s been 5 hours that you’ve wasted at night at that work. So you end up working, you know, a 16-17 hour day.

The weird thing with that is, the more you work every night does not mean it’s less work

Connectivity and work dominance: Panacea or pariah? 71

Table 2. The studies

Participants in our studies were managers and professionals. Focus group and interview participants were all under the age of 45; most were in their 20s and 30s. While the survey participants were slightly older, the average age of participants was 37. Participants were predominantly male (54%). All participants had undergraduate degrees and most had, or were engaged in, advanced study. The majority of participants had engineering, information technology, accounting, or other specific technical backgrounds. Although a range of profit and not-for-profit organizations was represented, the majority of participants were employed in various segments of the manufacturing industry. All, however, held managerial or technical/professional specialist positions. Many worked on Six Sigma project teams and held black belt designations. Their backgrounds, skills, and work histories placed them in the category generally referred to as ‘‘knowledge workers.’’

Initially, a focus group format was used to help construct the issues and guide the survey development. Sixteen individuals participated in the pre-survey focus group. Subsequently, the survey instrument was utilized to explore the relationships between connectivity, perceived flexibility, and life balance, as well as gather demographic and background information. A follow-up focus group was employed to gain greater depth of explanation and understanding of the findings. A total of 18 individuals participated in the post-survey focus group. There was no overlap of participants in the two focus group sessions. All quoted material appearing in the text was taken from focus group participants. Overall, 146 managers and professionals participated in the study.

tomorrow. . . .It’s like e-mail and all the tech- nology has created more work.

In an age in which sensitivity to work domination–— or the so-called ‘‘epidemic of work’’–—has grown in prominence,wewantedtounderstandwhyWCTwere so clearly related to more hours of work. Through our focus groups, three broad themes or explanations emerged, all of which are discussed next.

3.1. Organizational competitiveness as a basis for more work

The first theme that we recognized, an organiza- tional competitiveness argument, has been noted in previous studies. Essentially, this argument con- tends that cost-conscious organizations have streamlined to become leaner and more efficient operations. Accordingly, since the modern work- place relies on fewer people to do more work, increased workloads are inevitable (Lewis & Dyer, 2002). At the micro-level, this argument suggests that the increased workload is a function of the roles and demands that contemporary knowledge workers face. Their jobs are more complex, demanding, and changing than has been the case in the past. There- fore, from a purely competitive point of view, the need for increased workloads has gained accep- tance.

In this context, the facilitative function of work- connecting technologies must be noted once again. These technologies are simply tools or mechanisms for doing the necessary work. Our study participants recognized and accepted the logic of this argument. Indeed, they seemed to understand that WCT are essential to the nature of high-velocity, contempo- rary business:

Ours is a 24-hour operation. I don’t know how I could survive without it [WCT], without being able to leave the office at noon on some days and then be working again at midnight, being able to react to the problems that occur 365 days a year. There’d be no way to get away from it [WCT]. I couldn’t imagine working without a cell phone or being able to get on the mainframe systems, or anything like that.

Consistent with this perspective is the belief among many organizational leaders that unless they push theirpeopletodo more anddo itfaster, they will be unable to compete in the rapid-paced global economy (Galinsky, Kim, & Bond, 2001). Our partic- ipants also showed an understanding and acceptance of this perspective. For example, one manager ex- pressed his logic for using WCT to engage in off-hours work:

If you’re working on a bi-coastal area, you’ve got a limited amount of hours. You’re dead 3 hours in the morning, if you’re on the East Coast, until the west wakes up. Then, in the afternoon, you’re dead another 3 hours, from the time you would normally close and go home. Same [thing] if you’re working interna- tionally. There have been times when we had international calls at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., with a 12-hour time difference.

Here, one could argue that if more work is demanded, WCT should have a positive facilitative effect. When applied properly, WCT may permit some degree of latitude over where and when work will be completed. Accordingly, participating man- agers and professionals may perceive that life balance is enhanced through such arrangements.

72 C.R. Stoner et al.

Consistent with this reasoning, our results revealed a positive relationship between connec- tivity and overall life balance. Again, our focus group participants expressed the essence of this argument:

I was on a start-up account a couple years ago and the expectation when that opportunity came was to probably work more. There’s a lot of stuff to get done and the time frame is probably condensed. To do that, we got ev- erybody a laptop and access to VPN. People could work [until] their normal 4:30 or 5:00, go do what they had to do. . .go home and see the kids while they’re still awake, and then sign on after the kids have gone to bed or after their extra-curricular activities. So that’s a big [advantage] in terms of flexibility.

I have to meet the bug man at my house tomor- row at 2:00. When the bug man leaves at 2:30, I’ll go into my office and I’ll sit down. I’m not going to drive into the office for a couple of hours. So, yeah, [work-connecting technolo- gies] definitely give you the flexibility to do things like meet someone at your house. Or, if you have a child that has a teacher’s conference or something, it definitely gives you flexibility.

3.2. Personal choice as a basis for more work

There is a powerful line of reasoning which suggests that work-connecting technologies merely help ca- reer-focused managers and professionals do exactly what they want: expand their work time. Here, at least three themes must be considered.

First, although connectivity leads to more work, this outcome may be a desired and purposeful choice for individuals who derive personal significance and life meaning from their work. Within this context, WCTcreate a range of possibilities for extending and enhancing one’s personal satisfaction.

For example, Lewis and Dyer (2002) have argued that, to the extent that the nature of the work performed by knowledge workers is satisfying and absorbing, these workers may gain fulfillment from expanded work. In fact, Reeves (2001) contended that concern over long work hours was unnecessary, since these extended hours merely reflected pref- erences for work over less meaningful non-work activities (e.g., watching television).

In a slightly different vein, Hochschild (1997) argued that some people deliberately sought ad- ditional time at work as a way of compensating for the tension, uncertainty, and lack of fulfillment

they experienced at home. For these people, work provided structure and predictability, and was viewed as a more supportive, controllable, and comfortable environment than their home alter- natives. Although Hochschild’s study was specifi- cally confined to time at work, her arguments could logically be extended to finding solace from home demands in the cocoon of work-connected technologies that allow work to be performed from various remote locations, including the home. In short, one could use work as an escape, even while physically present at home, despite the fact that such behaviors may prove detrimental to the over- all family system.

There is a second theme that holds particular importance for our target managers and profession- als. Here, individuals choose to extend their work time because they believe the additional commit- ment will provide a competitive advantage against peers in vying for fewer and fewer career advance- ment slots (Stoner & Robin, 2006). We saw consider- able evidence supporting this argument, particularly within our focus group participants. One professional noted, matter-of-factly, that work-connecting tech- nologies allow individuals ‘‘to work ahead of time, knowing that [they] have something coming up.’’ Another professional offered a more penetrating perspective:

A lot has to do with personal pressure because of your competitive drive. It’s not necessary that your boss is saying that you have to do this. . . .If you see John Smith next to you, and he’s doing everything [to] get a promotion. . .and you want [the] promotion instead of him. . .you’re going to put extra pressure on yourself to go out and do it, and put in that extra mile.

Of the arguments favoring WCT, this personal competitiveness (or career enhancement) perspec- tive may be the most personally empowering. In a national study of over 1,000 adults, Galinsky, Kim, and Bond (2001) found that 41% of respondents used technology to carry out job-related work during typical non-work hours or days; not surprisingly, such work commitments were likely to enhance career success (Jacobs & Winslow, 2004). Addition- ally, a willingness to work long hours and a willing- ness to place work above family are often perceived as signs of loyalty, commitment, and productivity in a demanding business climate (Bailyn, Drago, & Kochan, 2001). Placing oneself into the realm of perpetual connectivity enhances one’s value to the organization. In short, non-work demands and re- sponsibilities may be ameliorated with connectivity, thus allowing one to devote ‘‘more of themselves’’ to the job.

Connectivity and work dominance: Panacea or pariah? 73

There is a third theme that hints at the addictive nature of work-connecting technologies. In some cases, the opportunity or choice to engage in addi- tional work arises in a more subtle manner, exempli- fying the rather insidious impact of connectivity on the competitive spirit of young, career-sensitive managers. One participating manager articulated it as such:

I’ve spent the last 21/2 to 3 years on the road and working for (company name). So, I was connecting back to work when traveling. When I was at hotels, what I found myself doing was signing on at odd hours when I didn’t really need to be signing on. But I found myself actually working more than I normally would have, had I not had these technologies. . . .Then, when I stopped traveling, I found myself doing it from home. I’ll go in before I go to bed. And for no good reason, I’ll sign on now to my work e-mail to see if I’ve missed anything. . . .I’m sitting here saying, ‘‘Why am I doing this?’’

This perspective was noted by Oswald (2004), who commented that modern electronics can be troubling sources of angst when striving to achieve work/life balance. Hill (1995, p. 2) noted, with only semi-sarcasm, that ‘‘Giving a workaholic an elec- tronic briefcase may in some ways be like giving an alcoholic a bottle of gin.’’ Although addiction anal- ogies can be carried to extremes, recent reports have explored the addictive-like nature of various forms of connectivity (e.g., Saranow, 2007). This strange sense, or feeling of the need to be con- nected almost continuously, was expressed by our participants:

I find myself, then, late at night. . .on the com- puter, and that sometimes makes me mad be- cause [I think], ‘‘What am I doing at midnight?’’ I mean, I know it’s my job and I should do it. I still know I have to do it, and having it in my house makes me do it, even though you don’t want to be doing it at midnight. So, it makes you work, even when you could be doing it in the morning.

In short, participants in our studies seemed drawn into this pervasive ‘‘cycle of success.’’ Here, career achievement led to heightened personal career aspi- rations, prompting a need to work more in order to demonstrate an acceptance of ever-escalating ca- reer challenges. Critically, it appeared that this movement toward more and more work and career dominance became an ingrained and normal aspect of one’s upwardly mobile lifestyle. Accordingly, WCT provided a needed, desired, convenient, and compa- ny-supported complement for achieving and getting ahead.

3.3. Cultural dynamics as a basis for more work

While utilizing WCT to increase the amount of, and time committed to, work was clearly a personal choice, that choice was affected by one’s cultural context. We found that cultural signals and manage- rial expectations played important roles for manag- ers’ work-expanding choices. For example, study participants spoke of leaders who espoused the vir- tues and values of work/life balance, but displayed behaviors consistent with classic work domination. One participant spoke of his boss, a department head, whose messages were interpreted–—rightly or wrongly–—asindicating the need for more work: ‘‘This guy was e-mailing me between nine and midnight almosteverynight. SoI think,that’s me.I [have] todo that, too, right?’’

When asked to reflect on their perceptions of organizational intention, participants were clear. Overwhelmingly, they felt that the organizational motivation in providing expanded connectivity was to gain more work from employees. Simple and straightforward, one manager explained his view: ‘‘I think [work-connecting technologies] allow them to extend the work day. So, you can work 8 hours and then go home and work another 8 hours.’’ In some cases, organizational leaders presented clear ex- pectations and demands, as experienced by one IT manager:

This past winter, I got sick for a day. I had my laptop at home. So, I signed on to VPN and sent my boss a message saying I wouldn’t be in today. He said, ‘‘At least you have your laptop at home, soyou can work at home then’’. . . .So I endedup probably staying in my bed most of the day, and probably working close to an 8 hour day–—if not more–—while trying to recuperate from being sick. I didn’t get a break [when] being sick.

Another manager noted:

I think the company knows what they are doing. I think the intention here–—they say it’s for flexibility and to increase your opportunities to access–—[is for] you to work more hours.

Some observers have even suggested the flexi- bility that is achieved through WCT has been permitted and even encouraged–—presumably from an organizational perspective–—precisely so more hours of work can be attained (IER/IFF, 2001). Consequently, as connectivity has blurred the traditional boundaries between work and non- work realms of life, salaried workers are expected to devote longer hours (Doyle & Reeves, 2001). Our findings concurred that when high work demands

74 C.R. Stoner et al.

are systemic within an organization’s culture, individual workers feel strong pressures to comply.

4. WCT and perceptions of reduced flexibility

Despite the logic and relative merit of the argu- ments presented, we observed a surprising and distressing outcome. In our study, as work-connect- ing technologies increased, participants did not perceive a greater sense of flexibility. Rather, they actually experienced a decreased sense of flexibili- ty, a somewhat counter-intuitive outcome which demands further consideration.

Fortunately, there may be evidence to help us understand this finding. Utilizing in-depth inter- views, Perrons (2003) found that while some re- spondents reported working at home–—at least some of the time–—helped them balance work and family life, others experienced greater tension. Largely, this tension came from the feeling that they were unable to escape from work. Similarly, Hill, Hawkins, and Miller (1996) found that employ- ees using flexplace did not experience better work/ family balance than those without flexibility in the location of their work. Further, The Association of Executive Search Consultants (2006), in a survey of senior executives from around the world, found that 59% of the respondents felt new technologies (con- sistent with our definition of WCT) had negatively impacted their leisure time.

In order to probe and better understand this per- ception of diminished flexibility, we again drew from our research and our interviews, as well as some limited but related research evidence. First, we must understand that for upwardly mobile managers and professionals (such as those in our studies), expanded connectivity comes with a set of conflicting expect- ations. This conflict arises between face time and ‘‘access’’ time. Indeed, as face time is reduced, the need for access time intensifies. Consistent with a study by Towers et al. (2006), we observed that both the managers and the colleagues of our study partic- ipants expected almost constant availability from technologically-connected employees, an expecta- tion that encroached on home life and led to an expanded workload. In short, as organizational lead- ers provided broader connected capacity, they expected recipient availability to be increased.

As mentioned earlier, managers of today’s con- nected workforce still value and reward those who exhibit intense dedication and commitment to their work, even if that work is done from remote sites (Lewis & Dyer, 2002; Perlow, 1998). Being ‘‘on call,’’ ‘‘plugged in,’’ and willing to provide the levels of

connected work time necessary to meet expanding work demands have become the cultural expec- tations for contemporary knowledge workers. Some have even facetiously referred to this contemporary demand for access as ‘‘electronic face time.’’ These expectations point to connectivity’s role in dimin- ishing one’s feeling of flexibility.

5. Rounding out our findings

At the outset, we asked some key questions, each demanding careful consideration. Broadly, we won- dered how the growing pervasiveness of WCT had affected the work and lives of young managers and professionals. Initially, we asked whether WCT fa- cilitated better control over life demands or wheth- er WCT exacerbated the confusion between work and non-work dimensions of life. Interestingly, the answer on both counts is yes.

At first blush, the provision of connectivity would appear to equip managers and professionals with greater flexibility and, accordingly, help them juggle family and other life demands. However, gaining connectivity and flexibility was accompanied by feel- ings of increased responsibility, and both self- and other-imposed expectations and pressures to work more. As such, ‘‘increased flexibility and autonomy often fail to empower many knowledge workers to manage the boundaries between work and personal life’’ (Lewis & Dyer, 2002, p. 307). In our study, while workers gained a greater range of time and place options, they actually experienced a sense of dimin- ished flexibility, noting that they felt ‘‘boxed-in’’ by the scope of connectivity affecting their lives. There is no doubt that WCT allowed flexibility regarding where and when work would be done. Yet, this same connectivity provided constant availability to work and dramatic expectations that more must be done, thereby increasing opportunities for a greater work- load. In short, it appears that although individual participants felt some benefit, they were more likely to experience a larger sense of invasiveness from the proliferation of work-connecting technologies.

Managers and professionals are often confronted by troubling mixed messages. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, expectations of work dominance are woven through the fabric of contemporary orga- nizations. In fact, a willingness to work long hours and place career above family is often perceived as a sign of loyalty, commitment, and productivity in today’s demanding business climate (Bailyn, Drago, & Kochan, 2001). These expectations are strong and non-debatable for young, talented, upwardly mo- bile managers and professionals such as those in our studies.

Connectivity and work dominance: Panacea or pariah? 75

Work-connecting technologies can ease the plaguing demands of work in today’s complicated, inter-connected business climate. However, WCT are far from a behavioral panacea. In general–—at least, for the population we studied–—connectivity can be expected to lead to more, not less, hours of work. Logically, to the extent that long hours of work have become an organizational and personal competitive expectation, WCT may be seen as a necessity rather than a flexibility option. When this occurs, and we believe that it has, connectivity becomes a deceptive device for increasing work. Such corporate movement is not without prece- dence. Companies have long expanded their range of benefits–—everything from free meals to con- cierge services–—in expectation that people would spend more time at work (Perrons, 2003).

6. Implications and answers: What is needed

Work-connecting technologies have helped change the face of work. Our studies and relevant reviews indicate that work-connecting technologies have wonderful facilitative potential. Yet, this same technology often exacerbates the tendencies of ambitious young professionals to engage in more work. Of necessity, then, we must consider what is needed to derive the greatest overall benefit from WCT. It is essential that this issue be viewed from four interrelated perspectives: cultural dynamics, organizational practices, leadership attitudes and actions, and personal choices.

6.1. Cultural dynamics

Young managers and professionals have always struggled with the tradeoff between career and personal time. Further, as one advances in the organization, the requirement of an expanding set of work-centered tradeoffs is an accepted and legitimate organizational reality. Technology adds a new set of tradeoff issues that are gripping young managers and professionals. For example, if an organization permits an employee to attend family functions during normal work hours, is it not reasonable to expect that the time be made up after hours? Moreover, if employees decry such expectations as intrusions, are they guilty of little more than self-centered and inequitable whining rather than accepting a logical and fair- handed tradeoff? While these questions pose valid considerations, our study–—and, in particular, our focus group interviews–—suggested a deeper set of dynamics.

Participants in our studies perceived a strong ‘‘im- balance in the tradeoff,’’ whereby the company ‘‘gives a bit and expects a lot.’’ Even this perception merely scratches the surface. Our study revealed a prevailing belief among young managers and profes- sionals that companies supported WCT because they ‘‘pushed people to do more work and. . .prompted people to work longer hours.’’ Significantly, respon- dents felt company support of WCTwas not driven by a company desire to make life balance more man- ageable for employees. The dichotomy here is strik- ing. Employees approach WCTas a means of securing additional flexibility and the opportunity for en- hanced life balance. Yet, they sense that organiza- tions choose to support WCT to promote flexibility so that work is ever-present and ever-pressing, and more work and longer hours can be secured.

Perspective is critical. Young, upwardly mobile managers do not rebel against more work. In fact, they expect it. However, they sense that the primary push behind WCT is to add work time, rather than to create flexibility. Consequently, they believe that WCT become an intrusive mechanism that fosters a new, ‘‘on-call’’ manager. Further, their experience is that the ubiquitous nature of WCTcontributes to a form of ‘‘cognitive intrusion,’’ whereby managers feel the ever-present need to be thinking about work (Ezzedeen & Swiercz, 2002).

We are left with the intriguing issue of why such perceptions exist. It is possible that in an era of productivity and lean management, the metric of work/life balance plays a limited role, regardless of the rhetoric being espoused. It is also possible that the perceptions of young managers are not accurate- ly tapping the true intentions of their respective organizations. However, it seems that organizations are doinglittletodispel these bleakperceptions.This issue is not inconsequential. If young talent believes that the use of WCT is manipulative, resentment and backlash are eventual outcomes. When young talent believes that organizational leaders espouse one thing, but embrace and reinforce another, credibility and trust lie dangerously close to the edge of demise. Organizations must battle the employee perception that organizations have encouraged and supported the proliferation of technology primarily as a method to extract more work from employees. In order to respond, organizational practice and leader attitudes and actions must be addressed.

6.2. Organizational practices

In general, organizational policies and practices have become much more flexible in terms of work arrangements and working times. However, the presence of WCT-supported flexibility does

76 C.R. Stoner et al.

not necessarily mean that these options are truly accepted as being legitimate and reasonable for upwardly mobile managers and professionals. Just because flexibility policies are on paper does not mean they are being accepted or followed.

Although there have been significant advances in the capability and use of work-connecting technolo- gies, firms are struggling with how to manage expect- ations regarding appropriate and reasonable use of these technologies. Such struggles are understand- able. While organizations have experience incorpo- rating technology into work processes to reduce waste and improve work efficiency and productivity, thesameorganizationshave limitedexperience using these technologies to manage employee flexibility programs.

While it may appear simplistic, organizational expectations of technology must change to support flexibility and balance without sacrificing career mobility. Technology should not be viewed as an opportunity to escape work, but rather as an en- abler of balance. Realistic expectations must be communicated, shared, and consistently enacted.

Clear organizational expectations (i.e., emerging cultural themes) need to be carefully considered. Well-publicized commentaries about ‘‘quality fami- ly time’’ must be supported by organizational poli- cies that put form on words, thereby helping to enact what is being touted. Of course, as noted earlier, this requires a true acceptance of flexible working arrangements and flexible working times.

Further, organizations must understand the in- herent productivity of the technologies they are bringing into the workplace. Technology can facili- tate working from a variety of locations, yet it may not provide the speed, consistency, and accuracy of information that is available via the worksite. In fact, our focus groups reported some discontent with these aspects of technology, indicating that connecting remotely to information systems, Web conferencing, video conferencing, and other tech- nologies was often fraught with technological glitches which complicated the work, hurt produc- tivity, and ultimately added more time to the work- ing process.

From an organizational point of view, there is an additional and interesting line of consideration. Researchers have recently argued in favor of orga- nizationally-supported career customization. This platform is based upon assumptions that Genera- tions X and Y do not shun hard work, but wish to work differently, in workplaces that are highly adaptable. Here, employees customize their careers while or- ganizations offer a variety of career paths which maintain an upward momentum (Casey & Corday, 2007). Flexible schedules and locations are part of

this move, and WCT provide the mechanisms for helping this move occur.

6.3. Leadership attitudes and actions

Organizational leaders must accept some responsi- bility for the productive and realistic use of WCT. It is crucial that thoughtful organizational leaders under- stand and establish reasonable limits for the use of proliferating WCT, since upwardly mobile managers and professionals model their actions after what they observe is important to their leaders. Leaders should respond boldly, recognizing their actions outweigh any finely-crafted rhetoric. There is little doubt that young professionals, questioning the pressing de- mands of work, look for cues to guide them in deter- mining ‘‘how much is too much.’’ The clearest and most visible cues come from the immediate boss, and what he or she models. In short, there must be clarity in the manager/employee dyad regarding what is being modeled and reinforced.

We saw the effect of leaders who were serious about keeping the use of WCT in perspective. For example, one young manager in our study com- mented on his boss’ view of WCT:

If you need me after 6:00, call my cell. But you’ll never get an e-mail from me after 6:00 p.m. or before 6:00 a.m. unless it’s an emergency. And if it is, I’ll call you first. Because I won’t do that to my wife and kids.

Clearly, the young manager in this case appreci- ated both the clarity and sense of balance being proposed by his boss.

There is a further dimension here. Leaders, par- ticularly those who are grooming younger managers, must accept critical experiential differences regard- ing the role and place of technology. For example, managers throughout organizations must recognize and accept that the standard value of face time, as evidence of organizational commitment and as a prerequisitefor advancement, isa largely antiquated rubric. The preferences of a younger workforce, the scope of work arrangements, and available connec- tivity options all merge to suggest that face time possesses far less real value today than was the case in previous generations.

A new paradigm of face time is warranted. The underpinning of this paradigm shift is for managers to embrace the reality that traditional face time is not commensurate with productive time. Indeed, face time has been supplanted by availability, and managers must adjust their expectations according- ly. At the same time, a climate of depersonalization cannot be tolerated. In a world where contact and relationships can easily become clouded and

Connectivity and work dominance: Panacea or pariah? 77

minimized, managers must find reasonable mecha- nisms for re-establishing the impact of face-to-face interactions. Remote workers must take the initia- tive to acquaint team members with what is actually being accomplished, and WCT can facilitate this message.

When the choice for traditional face time is consciously made, it can be optimized, as all team members place significance on the resulting meet- ings. By attending only those meetings of higher importance, individual and overall team efficiency can be maximized. The key is that individuals cannot be held to the standard of maintaining the expec- tations of traditional face time. Teams need to pick and choose their opportunities for face-to-face in- teractions to build impact, allow personal flexibility, and enhance the focused decision making that can take place when meetings are perceived as truly important. Of course, such an approach requires open and extensive communication, and a change in traditional paradigms. The range of meaningful WCT options here is ever-expanding. Web interfa- ces, video reporting, and Web meeting technologies can all respond to this need.

6.4. Personal choices

Despite the importance of leader role models, per- sonal accountability cannot be dismissed. Individual managers and professionals must exercise control over their own careers and lives, and the extent to which they permit connectivity to dominate them. This struggle is certainly not new for young, aggres- sive managers; it does, however, seem to be inten- sifying, as the means and ease of patterns of work/ life intrusion proliferate.

Intrusion, if handled appropriately, need not be a dirty word. Accordingly, young managers must proj- ect reasonable restraint in their use of connectivity, and they must provide appropriate accommodation regarding their level of commitment to work domi- nation and their willingness to make the tough decisions needed to assure life balance. Here, young leaders need to reflect on work and non-work trade- offs, and draw defining limits on their own work and personal time. Managers who refuse to set limits and prefer to view themselves as victims of a pervasive and ‘‘mad’’ system need to step up to the challenge of personal control. Our study participants intuitive- ly grasped this dynamic of personal control, as revealed in the two following comments:

The challenge comes in identifying the amount of work, because technology really is supposed to make you work better and faster, but not necessarily give you more work to do.

You have to be very diligent and take care of yourself. What I mean by that is, if you want to work 24 hours a day, the connectivity is always there. You may have a time when you need to do that, but then you need to remember to take time for yourself. If you don’t manage it, it’s your own fault.

Not only must individuals address the potentially invasive nature of WCT, the issue should be discussed within families. Familial obligations have expanded over thelast twodecades, with dual career marriages and single-parent families becoming more common. As such, the struggle for balance may take on added complexity. Potential work/family spillover needs to be openly communicated within families. Home ex- pectations must be clarified, and limits established. Regular monitoring and new family ‘‘set points’’ must be established. For example, there should be clear notations of ‘‘no-fly zones,’’ where work is not al- lowed to intrude. Simple rules such as no cell calls, text messaging, or e-mails during dinner time can be a start. In our workshops, we encourage couples to have regular family balance discussions that establish boundaries and plans for blocking unwanted intru- sion. It is imperative that young managers and pro- fessionals recognize that WCT provide an amazing set of tools which can help navigate the landscape of both work and family, but only when properly man- aged and controlled.

Individual managers need to realize that it is reasonable to be connected to work during what traditionally has been seen as personal time. Yet, they should also recognize that it is appropriate to de-tether without feelings of disloyalty or fear of recrimination. In short, these young managers must establish their own rules and limitations for WCTuse.

In reality, organizational, leadership, and personal levels of response are interconnected, and must be linked to provide patterns of consistent reinforce- ment. For example, it seems clear, from our work, that if young managers are to set their own personal guidelines, organizational cues can help set therange of what is acceptable and reasonable. Further, our studies suggest that when ambitious, talented indi- viduals are left on their own, they are likely to over- extend themselves. Again, clarity from the immedi- ate,directbossiskey.Whenindividual managerstake personal control, they enable WCT to reach the apex of their functionality. When this occurs, there is likely to be less negativity and less resentment directed toward the organization, and WCTare most likely to reach their greatest potential.

We must remember that technology should mod- erate, not exacerbate, time pressures. Although work-connecting technologies will never eliminate

78 C.R. Stoner et al.

the varied pressures of upward mobility, when prop- erly structured, WCT can and should ameliorate the effects on the lives of our young talent force.

References

Association of Executive Search Consultants. (2006, July 4). 87% of executives feel that work-life balance considerations are critical in their career decision making process. Retrieved August 26, 2006, from http://www.aesc.org/article/ pressrelease2006070401/

Bailyn, L., Drago, R., & Kochan, T. (2001). Integrating work and family life: A holistic approach. Cambridge, MA: Sloan Work- Family Policy Network.

Casey, J., & Corday, K. (2007). An interview with Anne Weisburg. Sloan Work and Family Research Network. Retrieved November 28, 2007, from http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/The_ Network_News/41/interview.shtml

Doyle, J., & Reeves, R. (2001). Time out: The case for time sovereignty. London: Industrial Society.

Espis, S. (2005). Infoholics anonymous. Computing Canada, 31(9), 12.

Ezzedeen, S. R., & Swiercz, P. M. (2002). Rethinking worklife balance: Development and validation of the cognitive intru- sion of work scale — A dissertation research proposal. Pro- ceedings of the 2002 Eastern Academy of Management Meeting. New Haven, CT: EAM.

Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Friedman, D. E. (1993). The changing workforce: Highlights of the national study. New York: Fami- lies and Work Institute.

Galinsky, E., Kim, S. S., & Bond, J. T. (2001). Feeling over- whelmed: When work becomes too much. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Higgins, C., & Duxbury, L. (2001). The 2001 national work-life conflict study: Report one. Ottawa, Canada: Public Health Agency of Canada.

Hill, E. J. (1995). Work (remote and otherwise) and family: Shifting the balance. Telecommuting Review, 13(12), 1—3.

Hill, J., Hawkins, A., & Miller, B. (1996). Work and family in the virtual office: Perceived influence of mobile telework. Family Relations, 45(3), 293—301.

Hochschild, A. R. (1997). When work becomes home and home becomes work. California Management Review, 39(4), 79—97.

IER/IFF. (2001). Work-life balance 2000: Baseline study of work- life balance in Great Britain. Warwick, UK: Institute of Em- ployment Research.

Jacobs, J. A., & Winslow, S. E. (2004). Overworked faculty: Job stresses and family demands. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596, 254—255.

Kanellos, M. (2006, February 1). Notebooks pass desktops in U.S. retail. ZDNet News. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6033967.html

Lewis, S., & Dyer, J. (2002). Towards a culture for work-life integration? In C. L. Cooper & R. J. Burke (Eds.), The new world of work: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 302—316). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Lockwood, N. R. (2003). Work/life balance: Challenges and solu- tions. HR Magazine, 48(6), 2—10.

MacInnis, P. (2005). Technology is at the heart of longer work weeks. Computing Canada, 31(9), 9.

New Orleans CityBusiness. (2006, August 3). Survey: Telecommut- ing best for staff-level employees. Retrieved from http:// findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20060803/ ai_n16660704

Nielsen/NetRatings. (2006, March 14). Two-thirds of active U.S. web population using broadband, up 28 percent year-over-year to an all-time high, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.nielsen- netratings.com/pr/pr_060314.pdf

Oswald, A. (2004). Achieving the work/life balance? Accountancy, 133(1325), 33.

Perlow, L. A. (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a high tech organization. Administra- tive Science Quarterly, 43(2), 328—357.

Perrons, D. (2003). The new economy and the work-life balance: Conceptual explorations and a case study of new media. Gender, Work, and Organization, 10(1), 65—93.

Pruitt, B. H., & Rapoport, R. (2002). Looking backwards to go forward: A timeline of the work-family field in the United States since World War II. London: Institute of Family & Environmental Research.

Reeves, R. (2001). Happy Mondays: Putting the pleasure back into work. London: Momentum.

Reich, R. (2000). The future of success. New York: Knopf. Saranow, J. (2007, February 14). Deleting the habit: How email

junkies do in withdrawal. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1. Schor, J. (1992). The overworked American: The unexpected

decline of leisure. New York: Basic Books. Stoner, C. R., & Robin, J. (2006). A life in balance: Finding

meaning in a chaotic world. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Towers, I., Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., & Thomas, J. (2006). Time thieves and space invaders: Technology, work, and the orga- nization. Journal of Occupational Change Management, 19(5), 593—618.

Van Dyne, L., Kossek, E., & Lobel, S. (2007). Less need to be there: Cross-level effects of work practices that support work-life flexibility and enhance group process and group-level OCB. Human Relations, 60(8), 1123—1154.

Whitehead, M. (1999). Work/life balance hits the top of graduate wish list. People Management, 5(14), 16.