Image credit below.
The discussion about work-life balance continues in the blogosphere. Today Chuck Newton posted The Nymphomaniac That Is The Practice Of Law. Below I add some related thoughts of others (and of mine) on this topic, a topic that seems to have developed a lot of charge.
From a recent column in The New York Times "Blurring by Choice and Passion" by Marci Alboher about whom I have blogged before
Whether you see yourself as a workaholic or as someone who merely blurs the line between work and play has lot to do with whether you like your work.With work-anywhere technology and a rise in entrepreneurship, we who blur by choice are in good company. A Google search of the phrase “work life blurring” brought up more than two million links; “work life blending” delivered a bit over seven million. Could it be that blurring and blending are the new work/life balance?
. . .
“When people do something they enjoy, it gives them energy,” [Maggie Mistal] says. “They start living in a way that has meaning and purpose. And just because work is fun, it doesn’t mean everything else loses its appeal.” If your passions don’t exactly lead to a career choice, Ms. Mistal says the personality traits and skills surrounding those passions should, and that you should use those to craft a career choice.
If you are interested in this hotly-debated work-life balance topic, this is a great read. (Dan Hull at What About Clients? has linked to it, too.) For more on the joy, fun, and factor in your work life, read an earlier idealawg post Is this lawyer a workaholic? Let's look at the fun/fear factor instead; the post includes links to some odd and humorous tests to see if you are a workaholic.
Let's add spirit into the work-life balance (or WLB) mix.
From Howard Gardner's new Responsibility at Work: How Leading Professionals Act (or Don't Act) Responsibly . . .
Zoketsu Norman Fischer, a former abbot of the San Francisco Zen Center, described a Zen Buddhist's attitude towards time and work, drawing on . . . [the] practice of cultivating continuous moment-to-moment attention. Speaking about the daily activities in which humans engage, he noted that, at its root,
everything is work—being alive and in a body is already work. Every day there is eating and shitting and cleaning up. There is brushing and bathing and flossing. Every day there is thinking and caring and creating. So there's no escape from work—it's everywhere. For Zen students there's no work time and leisure time; there's just lifetime, daytime and nighttime. Work is something deep and dignified—it's what we are born to do and what we feel most fulfilled in doing.
In the introduction to the book, Gardner discusses work as a vocation or calling versus work as "just a job."
It is not necessary to be religious . . . to deem work sacred. Indeed, many of those who treat work with the greatest seriousness are not religious in the conventional sense . . . . Increasingly, in the modern era life centers around work we want to do, like to do, and feel—for internal or external reasons—needs to be done well. And for at least some of us, . . .work needs to be "good."
He explains "good" . . .
We crave work that is of excellent technical quality, work that is ethically pursued and socially responsible, and that is engaging, enjoyable, and feels good.
Perhaps work-life balance is different for people who are doing "good" work than it is for people who are working at "just a job"? What are your thoughts?
Note: For another interesting perspective, read "Beyond Work-Life Balance" (PDF) by Amy Uelmen, Director of the Institute on Religion, Law & Lawyer's Work at Fordham Law. This article also is linked to by Raymond Ward at Minor Wisdom.
Image credit: Hyugacian7 at photobucket
Stephanie, this is an interesting take on "work/life balance." It puts me in mind of the physics definition of "work," which is (to this non-physicist) the application of force to move an object. I think we as a society at large impose a connotation on "work" to mean that it's hard and unpleasant, which leads to the idea that it has to be balanced by "life," which is fun and easy. Norman Fischer's quote highlights glowingly that the connotation isn't necessarily deserved! And our expectations and understandings get kind of muddled when work is fun and rewarding, even if "hard." (Or if life isn't fun or easy, but that's another issue.)
That said, it seems to me that it's important to spend some time on non-work activities even when work is the driving passion in someone's life. What's tricky is what the "balance" looks like. One of the reasons I dislike the term "work/life balance" is because the term itself suggests that the balance should be 50/50 or that "balance" is a fixed mindset or position to attain. It's that kind of understanding that causes people to suggest that "work/life balance" is PC code for slacker, as I've seen suggested somewhere.
I suspect that "balance" does depend on the worker's satisfaction with his/her career. I don't think burnout is the exclusive province of the unengaged worker; although I know a lot of people who love their work, I know very few (if any) who would be happy to give up everything other than work. But it's a continuum, and I think a lot of the argument is about the size and the content of the middle part, and those who enjoy their work see blurring and bright lines differently from those who desperately want to carve out some time for fun and joy in an otherwise dull/unhappy existence.
Love this conversation, and appreciate the input from those both pro and con.
Posted by: Julie Fleming-Brown | September 10, 2007 at 07:59 AM