Public and private work: Work, family and social institutions

While women who pursue a career in industries which, until the late 20^th century, were largely dominated by men, have been struggling against ‘glass ceilings’ and ‘sticky floors’, many men have also had to defend their ability to perform in domains that are traditionally dominated by women. A shift in cultural norms, a changing workforce and the rise and powerful performance of women beyond their ‘traditional’ domains, have left many men having to defend their identity as good fathers, family men and capable professionals. Although men still rank higher in terms of pay and job status in fields such as science, business and politics, times are changing.

Last year there were more women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies than ever before, and in 2011, women were more likely to finish Year 11 and 12 in high school than men and also made up 55.5 percent of all enrolments at university level (Baird 2013). And while such statistics are promising in regards to the prospect of closing the pertinent issue of the gender-wage gap in Australia, it also leads us to question at what stage over the past few decades did the success of the women’s movement translate into a stage for "reverse gender discrimination"? Why is it OK to publicly joke about the highly exaggerated poor capabilities of men in some areas, and yet if those comments were made towards women, a plethora of colourful words and a lawsuit would eventuate?

This form of gender discrimination is deeply rooted in many areas of our contemporary society, and if popular culture is any indicator, the idea of modern manhood is a joke. It is so heavily pervaded within our society, that all you have to do is turn on the television and look at the representation of men in shows such as Two and A Half Men, The Simpsons or Family Guy. Better yet, turn on any show and wait for the ad break where men are commonly represented as the forgetful father who makes breakfast for dinner, can’t clean up after himself let alone his children, or the simpleton who looks at women as if they are a piece of meat. Are all men like that? No, of course not, and similarly women don’t enjoy being portrayed as fantastic cleaners who are incapable of jobs that traditionally typically belonged only to men. But times have changed, and so should our attitudes to the opposite gender.

Men who work in traditionally female-dominated industries such as aged care are all too familiar with this, as the Aged Care Workforce 2012 Final Report indicated that men working in residential facilities experienced discrimination from colleagues, supervisors and care recipients. According to the report, “Some workers indicated frustration with continually having to prove their competence”. A feeling that would be familiar to many women working in industries traditionally dominated by men. So why then, do women who, as the women’s movement tells us, have been stigmatized and undermined due to their gender, inflict the same treatment to men who work in traditionally female-dominated industries? This seemingly unconventional inequality goes further than professional domains; for example, in a majority of cases mothers are favored over fathers in parental disputes (Mosel 11/03/13). Despite this evidence, Australia is currently lacking in human rights initiatives targeting men, as Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick recently noted that the Australian Human Rights Commission has no initiatives targeting men (Mosel 11/03/13).

What I am seeking to argue here is not by any means attempting to undermine the hardships that women have historically endured in regards to gender inequality. But that the endurance of such hardships does not mean that men should also be ridiculed or undermined by social groups in domestic environments, workplaces or government institutions for their capabilities across traditionally female domains. 

Rose Gell
Current student at the University of Sydney Business School.

A bittersweet irony: What does the ‘boundaryless’ career mean for Gen Y employees?

The notion of career offers a vantage point from which to understand the relationship between individuals and their organisations.  But from which vantage point should we be looking? Let’s look at the pre-existing career; the one that hasn’t started for most of us Gen Y university students, yet the one that looks to be the most seductive in its ‘limitless’ form - the ‘boundaryless’ career.

‘Boundaryless’ has become a fashionable concept in organisational literature, but what does this really mean for us Gen Y employees?  Does it give us greater choice, empower us, or perhaps a right to more flexibility at work?  Some may argue yes.  Others may shake their head.  It brews instability, insecurity and an excuse for organisations to not commit to us in return.  Nevertheless, the trend for Gen Y seems to be swaying towards option A, and it’s no wonder.  After all, we are the generation who ‘wants it all’ but wants to do it differently to how it’s been done before.

The boundaryless career tells us we must embrace our careers as our ‘personal property.’  No longer should the organisation dictate the structure of our career.  If we are to flourish in this new environment, we must become self-reliant, rid our dependence on the organisation, and most importantly develop our own competencies to become the architects of our own careers.  And while we’re busy doing all this, gone are the boundaries that once constrained us from doing so!

While this initially alludes to greater career empowerment, charactertised by greater flexibility and autonomy, in reality it confronts us with a bittersweet irony.  Physical mobility has almost become a given; we’re expected to move freely between jobs in search for ‘the best’, and we believe we are entitled to do so.  But while we admit to this ‘free agent’ attitude whose loyalties are spread, we also want the support we’ve been so accustomed to receiving from our parents mirrored by the organisation.  We want the best of both worlds.

We [Gen Y] have been perceived as embracing overinflated egos, a given ‘sense of entitlement’, and an expectation that employers should share our enthusiasm for a work/life balance.  But the greatest revelation is that our greater work experience and level of education has led us to become more mobile.  With our qualifications, it’s become simple for us to move between employers if we are unhappy (and why shouldn’t we?).  It’s no wonder the concept of the boundaryless career has emerged.

But here’s the catch, here’s that bittersweet irony - we want to break free from traditional constraints, while all the more wanting to follow a yellow brick road that’s been paved before us, leading us to our ideal career.  We still need (and want) that given sense of direction.  So we must ask the question, while we expose ourselves as job-hoppers with greater demands than generations before us, are we revolutionising the concept of career (as we like to think we are), or are we making it more difficult for ourselves in the long run?

In reality, while we jump between jobs in pursuit of our ideal career, we are cementing the view of us Gen Y employees having short attention spans and lacking in focus. For employers, who wants to interview (or better yet hire) someone who is the ripe old age of 30 and has an exhaustive list of different workplaces on their CV?  Surely the employees’ commitment comes into question, and instability comes to the fore.  And now the Gen Y hopper is stumped.  As we pursue the opportunities this boundaryless horizon seems to offer, we must caution ourselves of its effects in the long run.

Evelyn Chronis and Sylvia Chronis: Current students of the University of Sydney Business School.

Generational warfare: debating the symptoms of the problem, rather than the cause

The generational argument is a tenuous one. The formulaic, cyclical rhetoric seems unavoidable: older generations churn out, almost verbatim, the same critiques that were used against them in previous years by their elders and betters. People vehemently defend their emotionally charged stand-points; and as everyone has an inescapably personal stake in the discourse, everyone’s proverbial two-cents on the matter must be heard.

A similar bone of contention, albeit with a novel dash of fervour, seems to be taking form in populist media, public opinion, and even academic research in the latest generational stand-off. That between the so-dubbed Baby-Boomers, and Generation-Y. Inflammatory and controversial articles such as Joel Stein’s piece in Time Magazine, that attributed adjectives like “Lazy”, “Coddled”, and “Delusional” to younger generations sparked fierce debate. Unsurprisingly, particularly resourceful, and responsive members of the accused generation responded with equal disdain and exceeding irony, in a medium that speaks to their alleged flaws of being banal and vacuous: with internet memes.

Media theatrics and sensationalist journalism notwithstanding, there is some so-called tangible evidence to suggest that Generation Y does in fact adhere to their accused stereotypes. Huge consultancy firms produce expansive and empirically motivated reports charting the economic behaviour and emotional disposition of members of Generation Y, and generate statistics that claim to prove the professionally fickle, and self-entitled nature of the youth.

To borrow a proverb: Lies, damned lies, and statistics! The generational concept seems to be slippery, and at times dangerously misused; without thought or consideration to social or historical factors that may shape the traits of a generational cohort. The arguments are formed with little mention of gender, ethnicity, religion or race. Indeed, statistics that may oppose those aforementioned indicate that the new generation of workers has probably developed such dispositions and economic tendencies in response to increasing economic hardship and job insecurity. All of a sudden, the allegedly flighty nature of Generation Y seems somewhat more justified.

More importantly though, embedded deep within the current generational debate, and the under-handed snipes at younger generations, is a loaded message – and one that has knock-on effects that may not be widely appreciated. The message seems to be that; younger generations should gladly take any work that comes their way, no matter how insecure, given their flighty and non-committal attitudes.  The message is ubiquitous and pervasive, albeit carefully concealed – for the most part. This attitude is epitomised in a controversial article that was published in the Globe and Mail, by Gen-Y consultant Dan Schawbel, titled: “If Millennials want to lead, they need to stop jumping ship”. In such claims, the onus of responsibility is taken off systemic concerns, and placed on to the people facing them. In plain terms; nothing is “wrong with the system”, rather, it is the younger generations that are at fault.  I believe that this message, and the generational feud itself, could have implications of a somewhat dangerous nature.

Could it be that when bickering over the superficial differences between generations, with little social or historical consideration as to why these differences exist, our focus is distracted from the deeper, more structural issues at play?

Consider this: the empirical evidence of steadily increasing income inequality, wage stagnation and job polarisation in numerous countries, developed and developing. Within the context of the polarisation of the labour-market, and the increase in low-wage careers, a drive towards forced wage concessions and various other forms of wage cutting; including outsourcing, downsizing and subcontracting. This, along with the disempowerment of the worker in the progressive de-unionisation of workforces worldwide, increased job insecurity, and economic hardship makes for some worrying results. Indeed, the unemployment rate for Generation Y, on an aggregate scale, is double the general rate. Due to these factors, forces of globalisation and financial inter-connectedness, younger workers now face a fiercely competitive, hugely dynamic, highly de-regulated, and fast-paced work force.

One thing is sure. The generational war is like any other: it will claim casualties.

In engaging in the debate regarding the professional ‘shortcomings’ of younger generations, without possessing sensibilities as to the reasons for why such qualities may have formed, we are closing our eyes to the significant structural challenges that our current economies face. And in doing so, we are in turn closing our eyes to those who are most affected by the increasing income inequities, wage stagnation, and job insecurity. We are forgetting the most forgotten; those in the margins of these economies, those who are the most vulnerable, the most under-represented, and the most disenfranchised.  Granted, it is a lot easier to pass the figurative buck, and to debate the symptoms of a problem, rather than the cause. But perhaps instead of engaging in largely unconstructive and superficial rhetoric, along with games in generational one-upmanship, more attention should be focused on systemic issues that engender generational differences, and most importantly; on those most negatively affected by them. 

Sophie Ritchie: Current student at the University of Sydney Business School.

The National Broadband Strategy and other technological innovations allow a seamless integration of work, leisure and home-life through telework

Did you know that National Telework Week occurred on the 18-22 of November to raise awareness of the benefits of telework will take place? Sadly, most of you reading this may not even know what telework is, even if you are teleworkers yourself. Teleworking is the name given to working from home, simple as that! The benefits of telework are astounding­ - from reduced stress resulting from not having to sit in horrible Sydney traffic to commute to the office, to a better work/life balance and, in some cases, more time with your family. Like the sound of these benefits? You should give teleworking a try! 

Teleworking is already on the rise but with the implementation of the new National Broadband Network (NBN) it will only increase in popularity. Technological innovation, such as the NBN, only makes teleworking easier as it increases quick and seamless communication with the office when teleworking from home. Stephen Conroy, former Minister of Broadband and Communications, stated that, “the delivery of reliable high speed broadband to every Australian premise will potentially revolutionise how we will work”. But could this ease also come at a cost to the employee? 

According to a University of Melbourne study, employees may be more productive when teleworking but may overcompensate by working approximately three hours more than the traditional worker. So is a person choosing telework to reduce travel time, only to increase work hours? As the teleworking website suggests, there is also the worry of isolation, both social and professional. Support and continuous communication from management, workers and family are essential to overcome social isolation. However, will the company forget about including the teleworker, will you miss your promotion, or lose your networking connections? These all need to be considered. 

Companies are giving mixed opinions on this seamless integration between work, leisure and home-life. Yahoo and Google, who are at the forefront of technology assisting with telework, ironically disagree with employees working away from the office. As Google’s CFO Patrick Pichette minimises teleworkers in the company stating that the “magical moments” of eating, employee chatter and time with coworkers are lost. Opposing this view is Cisco Australia with approximately 90 percent of their global employee’s teleworking one or more days a week. “Our workers who work outside the office are consistently more engaged, more productive happier [and] have a higher sense of well being than traditional bricks and mortar workers”, says Tim Fawcett, Cisco’s general manager of government affairs and policy. Who wouldn’t want that? 

We believe that teleworking attitudes have been ingrained into our generation since we started school. In order to achieve what we wanted we had to be willing to work from home. In high school and primary school we had homework… Now, at university if we want desirable grades, a lot of time and effort need to be put in at home outside of the classroom. Prominent universities such as the University of Sydney, Charles Sturt University and Macquarie University, to name a few, offer and support telework in their institutions through online education; a person can complete their whole degree without setting foot in a classroom. With these attitudes and values entrenched in our everyday lives, it wouldn't be surprising if Generation Y would expect the opportunity to telework when they hit the workforce. 

This poses the question: is teleworking best suited to specific sectors or workplaces? Is teleworking suited to you? The best way to find out is to find our more by visiting telework.gov.au and gather your own opinions.

Hannah Anderson and Briana Tabone: Current students at the University of Sydney Business School.

Boundaryless careers that operate outside organisational boundaries

The rise of a ‘boundaryless’ career is a farcical dream, conjured by the whimsical exuberance of youth or by those that have not yet accepted their place in the hamster wheel of life. The realisation that the traditional nine to five for life is a thing of the past has been cultivated by doom-sayers touting global economic instability, the demise of trade unionism, employer preference for short term arrangements, and the imminent arrival of a humanoid named Siri, here to relieve you of your job whilst doubling as your personal organiser.

The traditional ideal held by many older generations that loyalty and commitment will result in job stability and career progression are no longer viable as employers find themselves needing to cut the fat in order to survive. Generation Y undoubtedly have an almighty task ahead of them – first to break the shackles of disapproval from employers who have long forgotten their misdemeanour's of the 70’s, and then to fight their way through the increasingly competitive queues for a job interview, let alone a full-time contract. The premise of job hopping your way to prosperity is an idea that has received considerable attention in recent years, yet the figures that show that on average, an executive only stays in an organisation for 3.3 years may in fact be more a consequence of the environment over the individual preference. Of course, numbers don’t tell the back-story of an emaciated economic environment in the aftermath of one the most seismic financial collapses in living memory. For those who experienced that involuntary change of career direction in the aftermath of the GFC, the refuge of a boundaryless career and it’s promised autonomy was found to be much less comforting than it was made out to be. Whilst we’re led to believe that the traditional organisational vocation will soon be a thing of the past, there is conflicting evidence that says otherwise, with job tenure remaining stable and employee predisposition to stable organisational employment rising in an increasingly volatile economic environment.

A recent by Oxford researchers indicated that up to 45 percent of American jobs are at risk of being taken by computers in the next 20 years. The rise of artificial intelligence and automated services are likely to effect workers in transport, production, and admin hardest, closely followed by sales, service industries and construction. Further development of intelligent computers could displace workers in management, science and engineering roles. The stark reality facing the labour force of the future – Gen Y, is a labour environment characterised by hyper-competition, technological encroachment, and a Centrelink line bursting with redundant professionals, begging the mechanised desk clerk for the monthly welfare cheque. This is of course all speculation. The fear of being domestic servants to robotic overlords is nothing new. In the early 1800’s, Karl Marx and David Ricardo both proposed that machines would replace human labour, and from 1811 to 1817, the Luddites sabotaged the textile machines that were perceived to be taking their jobs.

The ideal of the boundaryless career is expressed as increased mobility between companies, allowing for both physical and psychological flexibility. This proposition sits well with the generation that has been described as the no collar workers – who want to have their cake and eat it too. Gen Y without a doubt work to live, placing higher value on work/life balance and happily sacrificing pay in return for increased flexibility. The problem for this generation of the future, is that job security is likely to become more and more unpredictable, and the flexibility and mobility between jobs may be a thing of the past, replaced by the pertinent need for stable employment. The Oxford researchers clarified that the time frame for robotic replacements is highly dependant on regulatory approvals for such technologies. With a generation of hopeful job applicants pinning their hopes and dreams on a successful career of choice, we can only hope an Arnold Schwarzenegger like humanoid is sent back from the future to stop this all from happening.

Lachlan Renshaw - Current student at the University of Sydney Business School.

The Importance Of Stress Relief

I read with interest last week an item in the UK’s Daily Mail stating that British workers required a holiday every 62-days as a means of coping with debilitating job stress.

While not an authority on the latest UK workplace research, I can however say that the issues of annual leave and job stress definitely represent significant challenges here in Australia. Indeed, our research into employee stress within the community services sector indicates that workers in that area appear to be using their annual leave to deal with accrued job stress – a tendency that’s highly problematic. Afterall, annual leave is meant to be about improving quality of life, going on holidays, connecting with families and friends and achieving some degree of work-life balance.

Across the broader spectrum, there's also evidence that Australian employees are opting to save up their leave - forced to do so by work-related commitments and expectations, or as a form of insurance policy if they’re feeling insecure in their jobs. With other research figures indicating that Australians have 118-million days of accrued annual leave, it appears that the taking of yearly holidays is not a reality for a large proportion of workers.

Considering that stress and workplace injury are just two detrimental health affects arising from overwork and lack of genuine mental recuperation time, this represents an alarming trend. For business alone, the costs resulting from subsequent compensation claims, resignations, job transfers, sick leave, staff turnover and staff re-training can be significant.

Clearly, the importance of reducing stress and ensuring that workers have access to meaningful annual leave is something modern managers and executives can’t afford to ignore. Such outcomes may require a re-assessment of the way jobs are designed, or more importantly, the implementation of annual leave programs that enable staff to have control over when they take their holidays. The rewards of such initiatives would be enormous. Indeed, a happy, rested, stress-free workforce will engage in their work in a different, more productive way – a critical factor in providing better outcomes for both employee and business health.

Authors: Toby Fattore and Maja Moensted from the University of Sydney Business School