So many roles I have seen advertised lately spruik work/life balance in the description.
Personally I suspect this is to offset the ridiculously low salaries they are offering whilst trying to lure highly experienced applicants....These applicants are usually guilt infused mothers, who will give 300% in exchange for the chance to start after school drop-off time, or the possibility to go to little Johnny's athletics carnival once a year. They will sacrifice salary for family. And I mean enormous salary sacrifice. I know some who are being paid roughly 70% of their industry average wage and still averaging around 50-60 hours per week. As much as that makes them sound like complete mugs, I'll admit to being one of them.
What shits me is that after you go to the effort of responding to an ad shouting the possibility of real work/life balance, you discover in reality the company has nothing of the sort in place, unless they mean you have the option to sleep at work due to the long hours they expect....or you can shag your workmates, because you'll never be home to nuture the relationship with your own partner...or there's a dry-cleaner, cafeteria or day care onsite, because that's the only way you will get your work clothes clean or see the kids and they don't encourage lunch breaks away from your desk. And handy home hint to advertisers -"Work Hard, Play Hard" is not the same as work life balance.
Now I do still naively keep my eyes open for these roles, and in my mind I would love a company that will let me start late so I can do school drop-offs and miss the horrendous peak hour traffic, and in exchange I will work later at the other end of the day as my partner can do the after-school collections. It doesn't seem unreasonable does it?
Anecdotally I have heard from HR friends (and believe it or not I have a couple) that they know they get alot more out of working mothers exactly because we all flagellate and stress about ensuring we pull our weight at work as well as at home...apparently we demonstrate amazing multi-tasking skills.
However none of this can be raised in a job interview because it is percieved that our family is more important - which, let's face it, it is.
However, despite claims of work life balance and family friendliness, actually raising it in an interview is the proverbial "elephant in the room."
My last role was good for the staggered start times and being around for the kid stuff, but I did give them 100% and did take the reduced salary and mega workload...but on the whole, I would rank them higher than many for work life balance. I had a nice boss who valued his time with the kids, (his kids, not mine) and I think that helped.
Recently I responded to a "work life balance" ad, which was located absolutely miles away from where I live.
I had the telephone interview with the obligatory recruitment consultant first, and he was a lovely man. He promised to raise the later start, later finish thing with the company, who flatly refused to entertain the notion of a staggered start time.
I put a friend in touch with the company.
This friend lives close to the company and is amazingly talented at what she does.
Perfectly suited for the role. Much more than me.
She was a shoo-in for the job, but was also sadly saddled with a child. However as it was still possible for her to start at the start time, she went for the interview and reported back the company's version of work life balance was the opportunity to join the company's triathlon team in your down-time. Strangely not her idea of work life balance. She did not pursue it any further.
**late addition to this post - she also reported they asked her if she planned to have more children...Is that even legal? I undertand the job subsequently went to a man. Probably better for their triathlon team that way**
What does work life balance in a role mean to you?
Personally I suspect this is to offset the ridiculously low salaries they are offering whilst trying to lure highly experienced applicants....These applicants are usually guilt infused mothers, who will give 300% in exchange for the chance to start after school drop-off time, or the possibility to go to little Johnny's athletics carnival once a year. They will sacrifice salary for family. And I mean enormous salary sacrifice. I know some who are being paid roughly 70% of their industry average wage and still averaging around 50-60 hours per week. As much as that makes them sound like complete mugs, I'll admit to being one of them.
What shits me is that after you go to the effort of responding to an ad shouting the possibility of real work/life balance, you discover in reality the company has nothing of the sort in place, unless they mean you have the option to sleep at work due to the long hours they expect....or you can shag your workmates, because you'll never be home to nuture the relationship with your own partner...or there's a dry-cleaner, cafeteria or day care onsite, because that's the only way you will get your work clothes clean or see the kids and they don't encourage lunch breaks away from your desk. And handy home hint to advertisers -"Work Hard, Play Hard" is not the same as work life balance.
Now I do still naively keep my eyes open for these roles, and in my mind I would love a company that will let me start late so I can do school drop-offs and miss the horrendous peak hour traffic, and in exchange I will work later at the other end of the day as my partner can do the after-school collections. It doesn't seem unreasonable does it?
Anecdotally I have heard from HR friends (and believe it or not I have a couple) that they know they get alot more out of working mothers exactly because we all flagellate and stress about ensuring we pull our weight at work as well as at home...apparently we demonstrate amazing multi-tasking skills.
However none of this can be raised in a job interview because it is percieved that our family is more important - which, let's face it, it is.
However, despite claims of work life balance and family friendliness, actually raising it in an interview is the proverbial "elephant in the room."
My last role was good for the staggered start times and being around for the kid stuff, but I did give them 100% and did take the reduced salary and mega workload...but on the whole, I would rank them higher than many for work life balance. I had a nice boss who valued his time with the kids, (his kids, not mine) and I think that helped.
Recently I responded to a "work life balance" ad, which was located absolutely miles away from where I live.
I had the telephone interview with the obligatory recruitment consultant first, and he was a lovely man. He promised to raise the later start, later finish thing with the company, who flatly refused to entertain the notion of a staggered start time.
I put a friend in touch with the company.
This friend lives close to the company and is amazingly talented at what she does.
Perfectly suited for the role. Much more than me.
She was a shoo-in for the job, but was also sadly saddled with a child. However as it was still possible for her to start at the start time, she went for the interview and reported back the company's version of work life balance was the opportunity to join the company's triathlon team in your down-time. Strangely not her idea of work life balance. She did not pursue it any further.
**late addition to this post - she also reported they asked her if she planned to have more children...Is that even legal? I undertand the job subsequently went to a man. Probably better for their triathlon team that way**
What does work life balance in a role mean to you?
I can truthfully say that I’ve never asked any questions like that, so not offended. Can see the value using them in a grad program, but thankfully we don’t have one here!
ReplyDeleteIn defence of HR, psychometric testing isn’t that scary – the ones I’ve used just look at behavioural preferences in a work context – e.g. extroverted/introverted, big-picture/detail-oriented, and the like. Psych testing (& ref checks) make managers feel more comfortable they know what they’re getting; kind of like trying on a pair of jeans before you buy them (“does my butt look big in this?!”). In my experience they rarely form a key part of the decision – if they like you and you have the experience, that’s usually good enough despite what any test says!
So good to hear from the HR side of the fence TJ - Thanks. I think this comment is meant for the interview post, rather than work/life balance one?
ReplyDelete