I know I'm not going to convince you, because you can be very stubborn when it comes to the definition of things
Is it still stubbornness if I am right? ;P
It's not a unicorn, it's just a normal thing people have to manage.
Life is a thing they have to manage. The separation between different experiences of living doesn't exist.
Our work-life balance was terrible, everyone was miserable, but we got it done. At the time we were proud of what we accomplished... but we all know there was a huge cost to our lives.
Your life was terrible at that time and then you were glad you made it through and accomplished, even though there was a cost to get that feeling.
It is just life. It is singular.
Now I'd prefer to let a project fail if they set unrealistic timelines because I don't see any reason why they should be successful after failing to plan appropriately.
For sure. This is about taking control of your life and knowing your boundaries, capabilities etc. However, what incentive would you need to push through and get it done? More money, an extended vacation, if it was for something like a step toward curing cancer? What is your cost-reward structure?
Maybe when younger, you didn't value yourself as much as you do now.
Good leaders ensure their staff have a good work-life balance by protecting them from unreasonable requests, and bad leaders ask or demand their staff to work more than they are getting paid to.
At least as far as you and I are concerned, we aren't forced to work for a particular company. We always have options in life.
I understand what you're saying, but I think ultimately the phrase 'work-life balance' is just shorthand for "I'm spending too much time at work and its disrupting the other parts of my life that are also important to me but that I've been neglecting".
If I tell people that my work-life balance in my current role is good, they instantly understand that I'm able to spend time on a range of things that are important to me (friends, family, hobbies, sleep, etc) but if I tell people that a previous role had a terrible work-life balance, they instantly understand I wasn't happy with the hours I was spending on work.
You can totally argue that both of those scenarios are just good-life and bad-life, but the phrase 'work-life balance' is efficient for these descriptions and doesn't require additional explanation.
This is what I disagree with, because I think people use it that way when they speak, but their behaviours say something else. They are blaming their workplace as the problem, but that is rarely even close to the full story. As fucked as so many workplaces might be, the problem isn't in the workplace for the most part, because they are working on a known algorithm of profit maximisation. Any employee can jump ship - but the vast majority do not. If all the unhappy employees jumped though, burnout wouldn't happen, nor would that company survive.
The collective understanding is irrelevant. It is similar to everyone thinking the earth is flat 500 years ago (and millions of people now too weirdly).
Honestly, I think you're trying to oversimplify...
There's lots of reasons why the workplace is the actual issue:
There's also lots of reasons why it can be really hard to jump ship:
Sure profit-maximization is known... but within that algorithm there are endless variations of how to achieve that goal, and some variations have a good work-life balance and some don't.
I'm not sure if it's helpful to tell workers that if they feel overworked they can just leave... it is honestly genuinely a full-time job to look for work sometimes. I think the better approach is to train companies to look after their most important resource in a sustainable way.
There is so much that companies can, and should, do to prevent the burn out of their employees:
Managing workload and expectations, providing clear career progression opportunities, providing support, reducing bureaucratic hurdles, etc... and then there is a bunch of other lifestyle supportive things they can do; provide childcare centers, provide educational opportunities, provide physical & mental health services, arrange deals in housing, provide transportation, etc. Of course companies are not obliged to provide these things, but there is a reason why lots of companies have, and that's because it all helps entice employees to join and retains employees by reducing burnout.
I think that this is where it gets interesting, because the oversimplification I see is in the heuristic of blaming the workplace. The complication comes in when people are changing all of the time.
I have a pretty unique view of this where I changed (mentally, physically, emotionally) in an instant. The job didn't change, I did - and it became magnitudes harder. While I still liked my job and what I did, I had to work for the money with far less certainty, worry about my family, my own health - blah blah. The workplace became for more stressful.
What people don't factor in is how they change over time, because it is like the proverbial frog in slowly boiling water. The changes not only change us physically, but also our opinions and beliefs about our experience. And this affects how we feel about our experiences, our workplaces, our relationships, ourselves and all the other aspects.
These days, very few workplaces in the western world are overly abusive, because they just won't be able to operate. However, people are increasingly demanding about what they expect from the workplace, as if the workplace should provide a full life experience. The irony is that the more the workplace provides, the more people rely on it and at some point, I can see it turning into a Brave New World kind of dystopia, where everyone is completely reliant on the workplace for all aspects of their life..
I disagree with that totally.
I think your overall view is that people are weak, stupid and selfish - younger generations especially - and this informs your views and opinions on so much that you write about.
People definitely don't want their workplace to be a full life experience. The provision of government services don't turn people into useless blobs.
People just want to live. They want to spend time with their family and friends, have quality relationships and connections, and spend their time doing worthwhile things.
Unfortunately, we've still got a society where the minority takes an outsized share of resources, and so the rest of us have to work harder and longer than we really need to.
People don't want their workplace to be a full life experience, I don't know anyone who thinks that. People just want to earn money to survive and look after their family.
Since people are working more hours per year than historic averages, we're facing burnout at higher levels. We need more education and research on it to help people realize, but it's also up to companies to manage burnout in their employees too - if they want to reduce staff turnover.
OH!
I just figured out why you keep pushing this idea that burnout is the fault of the individual and companies bear no responsibility whatsoever..... you want high turnover so companies have to increase training costs and employ you to do it.
Very clever. Carry on.