‘The taste of a different life has helped workers re-value their goals’

Your edited book begins with your own chapter, 'Will work ever be the same?' Should it be?

GK: Work is unlikely to fully return to its pre-pandemic state, as that has fundamentally reshaped how, where, and when people work. The pandemic rapidly accelerated existing trends, such as remote work, digital transformation, and a focus on work-life balance. 

For many people, this period led to a reassessment of priorities, where they rediscovered activities they once loved or explored new interests as a way to manage stress and enhance wellbeing. Many of us have realised that it is possible to maintain productivity while working in different ways, and that achieving a healthy work life balance is essential for both happiness and productivity.

Before the lockdown, only about 5 per cent of the UK workforce worked primarily at home – this increased to nearly half during the peak of the pandemic. Today, around four out of ten employees work remotely at least part of the time and many are very reluctant to return to traditional office-based settings. 

Remote and hybrid work are expected to become the norm across many industries, influencing everything from office design, communication methods and leadership styles. Allowing employees some control over the location and timing of their work appears crucial for retaining and attracting talent, addressing skills shortages and promoting inclusive workplaces. Our book focuses extensively on this issue.

PB: Agreed, the pandemic's legacy is a permanent shake-up to how we organise our work, how we value it, and how it complements the other aspects of our lives. Those of us working in the work-life balance field for several decades have long called for this re-prioritising of work demands. The speed with which it occurred on such a mass scale during the pandemic was the main surprise. You could practically sense workers feeling 'what does it matter if my work task is completed today or not, in the light of the possibility of catching a life-threatening virus?'

Work was completed, of course, but spending more time with family, away from office/work demands, and focusing on your own personal needs and values, became much more important to so many. Many workers now feel reluctant to reject these new priorities, this improved balancing of work and life domains, to just revert back to work being the main goal in their lives. It's almost as if the taste of a different life, without the dreary daily commutes and office politics, has helped many workers permanently re-value their life goals and experiences. So no, I personally don't think work should just be the same again.

What are the psychological characteristics and skills that employers might be increasingly looking for in this 'new normal'?

GK: Firstly, I don't think there is, or ever will be, a 'new normal'. Instead, flexibility and a tolerance for uncertainty are essential skills for employees to navigate an evolving work landscape and thrive in remote and hybrid settings. Particularly important is digital literacy – the ability to use digital tools, manage information, communicate online and ensure security and privacy. Remote workers also need to develop skills and strategies to effectively separate work from personal life and switch off from work demands, especially when their workplace is also their home.

Other key skills involve the capacity to collaborate well with diverse teams, understand different perspectives and provide support in a mutual environment. My research with child-protection social workers who are working remotely found that having a 'secure base' that provides emotional support, and being able to recognise when colleagues are struggling, are crucial for managing the emotional challenges of the job and avoiding burnout. 

More generally, the ability to remain productive and manage time effectively without direct supervision is important. Leaders of remote teams also play a key role in supporting employees' wellbeing and productivity. They need empathy and adaptability to manage remote and diverse teams, shifting from micromanagement to focusing on outcome-based performance.

PB: I think employers need to consider this re-prioritising of life values now being adopted for many workers. We're seeing workers of all ages demanding more work-life balance flexible work opportunities, including for example: a 4-day week, paid leave to care for grandchildren and to study, time away from work to travel, less time spent on work commuting, flexibility to work remotely, paid menopause leave, and so on. 

Plus people are demanding work that is meaningful and which offers useful training and career advancement options, especially around AI and digital work skills. Thus, employers seeking to attract and retain workers of all generations are increasingly being creative in the flexible work options they offer.

As Gail said, this increased flexibility of remote working also requires a shift in supervision practices by employers and a focus on productivity rather than where/when work is conducted. For many employers this change to how workers are managed is a difficult process, hence the increase in remote monitoring practices such as keyboard/website monitoring. Providing all workers with work they find meaningful and are highly engaged in is extremely difficult, but micro-managing a worker's keystrokes doesn't seem like the correct solution to me.

Something that seemed to me to underpin a lot of your book is the sense that in Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous times – a 'turbulent era', in your more succinct title phrasing – we run the risk of sidelining and stigmatising emotion in the workplace. How do you see the role of Psychology research and practice here?

PB: The pandemic brought into focus how workers felt about the job they do, i.e., how much is work worth risking your own health/life and your family's health? Many workers, of course, have no choice, they have to work. But the pandemic produced an increased recognition of the emotional impacts of work for many employees. The frontline workers working under extreme conditions for lengthy periods of time, experienced levels of psychological burnout that were unprecedented in the last few decades.

This recognition that work can have a chronic psychological impact has resulted in the rise in 'psychosocial employment' legislation in many countries, including recently for example, in Australia. Employers are now formally legally responsible for both the physical and psychological health of their workers. They face substantial fines and legal sanctions if they don't support their workers adequately. The chapter in our book discussing the role of emotions at work builds on decades of work on this issue and identifies the practices employers can adopt to enhance the emotional wellbeing of their workers.

It seems clear that any workplace trend, even if favourable for the vast majority of workers, will be unfavourable for others. To what extent can Psychology support a more individualised approach to work?

GK: Wherever possible, a personalised approach is the key to ensuring optimum wellbeing and productivity. Person-environment fit theory will help organisations ensure that an individual's characteristics, such as their skills, values and preferences, are well aligned with the attributes of their working environment, including the organisational culture, working conditions and job demands. A good fit will enhance job satisfaction, performance and wellbeing, as people will be better able to thrive in their roles. 

Another way psychology can support a more individualised approach to work and enhance satisfaction, engagement and performance is to help employees craft or modify their job roles to better align with their skills, interests and values. This might involve adjusting job tasks, changing how tasks are performed, or reshaping relationships with colleagues. The crafting process needs to be managed carefully though, to avoid unclear responsibilities or overlap with others' roles, potentially causing confusion or friction within teams.

PB: Occupational/organisational psychology often adopts an overly positive 'Pollyanna' approach, where we emphasise how adopting 'ideal' work conditions will ensure all workers are happy, engaged, and productive. Of course, this is not the case. Given a choice, many people would not work in their current job at all or would work under quite different conditions. 

The value of occupational/organisational psychology is in considering the individual worker and also the organisational system they work within. We often state for example, that it's no good resolving a worker's feelings of occupational stress/burnout and then sending them back to the same heavy workload and adverse work conditions. Resolving both individual workers' and organisational system problems is the key to success.

This systems approach is quite different from other areas of psychology (noticeably clinical psychology), where the focus is primarily on the person. Is it a lack of resources/a supervisor's leadership style/an unfair system/outdated technology that is primarily contributing to a worker's stress experiences? 

If we resolve the system-level problems we'll hopefully improve work conditions for other workers there and, for example, see a subsequent reduction in formal work stress claims. I don't really see this focus on addressing system-level issues and their impact on individual worker's experiences changing very much.

I wonder if the mix of personal and system factors also feeds into deeply unsatisfying public discourse around work. I listened to a BBC 5 Live phone-in around the right to request a four-day week recently… it was awful. Never mind that loads of people obviously had very personal reasons for whatever their stance was… I don't think anyone actually agreed on the parameters! For example, being paid for five days and only doing four days is very different from squashing five days' worth of hours into four.  

GK: A four-day working week is sometimes viewed as a panacea for work stress and burnout. In the 1920s, Henry Ford reduced the length of the working week from six to five days with the same pay, believing that employees would put more effort in. Apparently, he was right! Despite calls to introduce a four-day week since the 1950s, uptake has been very slow. 

However, since the pandemic, more employers have introduced this approach, with some finding benefits for employee satisfaction and reduced sickness absence. Nonetheless, the topic remains politically charged, involving debates about work-life balance, labour rights and economic impact. Supporters claim it will enhance well-being and productivity and attract top talent, while opponents worry about its impact on business operations, economic productivity and job availability. I share your concerns about the potential risks and believe that careful planning and clear parameters are essential to mitigate any potential negative consequences.

PB: Agreed. The focus again should be on productivity. Even before the Covid pandemic, trials of four-day weeks, then called compressed working weeks, were occurring in multiple countries, with mixed results of success. These approaches were based on exactly what you stated – five days of work was compressed into four days by working four long days, for example. Having a regular 3-day weekend offset the four long workdays. Other variations include a 9-day fortnight. For many workers these options are preferable and as Gail said, have produced positive long-term outcomes such as productivity, job satisfaction, and worker attraction/retention.

I think our current economic difficulties also have an influence here. So for example, if a parent can work one less day a week and save one day's childcare costs, that is highly attractive. Employers offering this flexibility around where and when a worker works are also highly attractive. Working out a suitable arrangement between a worker and an employer is the key, and yes agreed a standard solution won't be attractive for everyone.

Intersectionality probably comes in here too. What's a current hot topic in the intersectionality of work that our readers might not have considered?

GK: There is evidence that employees who belong to two or more underrepresented groups can face oppression and limited opportunities in the workplace. Unfortunately, many organisations overlook intersectionality in their diversity and inclusion programmes. We need more understanding of how intersectionality affects workplace dynamics. There are several areas that we could focus on. The expanding gig economy is a particular challenge – gig work is often precarious, low-paid and lacks employment rights and benefits such as sick pay. This can further exacerbate the disadvantages faced by already marginalised groups.

Neurodiverse employees may experience unique challenges in the workplace and those from other marginalised groups may encounter multiple layers of discrimination.

Intersectionality also highlights how stereotypes related to race or gender can interact with those related to neurological differences, leading to different expectations and treatment. Workplace inclusion programmes that focus solely on one aspect of diversity, such as race or gender, might overlook the needs of neurodiverse employees or fail to address the interaction between different aspects of identity interact. For genuine inclusion, organisations must adopt a holistic approach that considers both neurodiversity and other social identities within their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. A chapter in our book focuses on this issue.

Another group of people that can face major challenges is the so-called 'sandwich' generation – typically individuals in their 30s to 50s, who are simultaneously caring for ageing parents and children. This group can face considerable pressures as they balance caregiving responsibilities with work, family life, and their own personal needs. The challenges vary greatly depending on their gender, race, socio-economic status, and other identities. 

For example, women may experience more stress as they are more likely to be primary caregivers, while men may face stigma for requesting flexible schedules. Moreover, cultural norms around caregiving differ by race and ethnicity – in some cultures, elder care is expected and not considered a burden. Discrimination can make it harder for racial minorities to request and receive accommodations like flexible schedules. Caregivers with disabilities or chronic illnesses face additional burdens, increasing the risk of burnout without adequate workplace support, they may face burnout more quickly than other caregivers.

PB: The base point is really that the value of a diversity of workers has become more prominent and recognised. There's ample evidence demonstrating that diverse work teams are more productive and creative than less diverse teams. Increasing diversity across a range of worker's demographic characteristics is thus important, and diverse workers should be suitably supported. Thirty years ago, I was working on how we attract and (importantly) retain more female workers in our police and fire services – sadly, issues I'm still working on. 

Support provisions then were pretty basic – providing female uniforms, equipment, and changing rooms in all police and fire stations, for example. The current shortage of skilled workers across all sectors has highlighted the need to embrace different forms of worker's diversity including intersectionality, which is the focus of one chapter in our book. As long as a worker can perform a job well and are supported fairly their specific demographic characteristics are largely irrelevant.

Do you think the psychology research, from yourself or others, fully considers the 'life' part of work-life balance? It seems to me that perhaps the most significant thing about the pandemic was the 'pause' that allowed people to reconsider other aspects of their lives.

GK: Many work-life balance theories tend to concentrate on the dynamics between 'work' and 'family', often neglecting the self and individual wellbeing. Psychologists have developed some useful competency frameworks to help individuals accomplish this. Some of the risks of remote working we and others have identified are isolation and loneliness, communication challenges, distractions from household chores, family members or pets, technology issues, feelings of disconnection from the organisation and team and fear of missing out (FOMO). Moreover, there is evidence that remote workers are more likely to continue to work while sick than those in traditional office environments. Organisations have a legal duty of care to address these risks, provide resources and comply with regulations wherever their workers are located.

While I am cautious about making broad generalisations across generations, evidence suggests that different generations have different perspectives on work-life balance… organisations should take this into account. 'Baby Boomers' often prioritised professional achievements over personal life, leading to challenges in maintaining a healthy work-life balance. In contrast, Gen Xers having observed the impact of their parents' long working hours, generally seek to excel at work without sacrificing their personal lives. 

Millennials and Gen Zers seem to focus more on work-life integration and are able to use technology to help achieve this balance. Many who began working during the pandemic have never experienced traditional office environments. These individuals often struggle to build personal connections at work and show a preference for working in communal spaces for this reason.  

PB: I've often had to answer the question from a sceptical employer 'why should I care what my employee does in their non-work time?'. The answer is that engaging in non-work activities – family, sport, travel, study, religious commitments being the main ones – enhances recovery from work, so workers return refreshed and ready to be productive. 

Plenty of evidence links insufficient work recovery times with adverse consequences primarily reduced productivity, increased mental ill-health and burnout. It's not about the specifics of what you do in work time: that's why we spearheaded the change 15 years ago from 'work-family' to 'work-life' balance.

It's also pertinent to recognise that some high-risk of stress occupations have an adverse impact on the worker and their family relationships. The high level of divorce rates for police officers for example, is often cited as evidence of this point. In response, many organisations offer support services to both workers and their family members, to discuss relationships, finances, health, etc. Recognising the impact of a job may have on a worker's external life and supporting this impact is a responsibility of a decent employer.

What's your favourite/least-favourite workplace 'trend', driven by the media or social media? My least favourite by some distance is the concept of 'quiet quitting'.

GK: I totally agree – it is irritating. 'Quiet quitting' is often used to describe people who are responding to feeling undervalued and overworked by doing 'the bare minimum' or 'only' working the hours they are paid for. I recently read an article suggesting that it is a type of passive-aggressive behaviour, implying that people should feel guilty for maintaining boundaries and having a life outside work. 

However, it is essential to have some time and energy left over for our personal lives, as working excessively long hours is unsustainable and harms both performance and wellbeing. Despite evidence showing that overwork reduces rather than increases effectiveness, this over-commitment is often overlooked or even rewarded. Instead of 'quiet quitting', I support  'loud quitting', where employees openly express their concerns and needs rather than nursing grievances.

PB: Agreed, I also like loud quitting! The media irritatingly chases supposedly new trends. I think I sound like a dinosaur saying: 'well actually it's not that new, we had this 30 years ago, it was just called something else' (i.e., 'working to rule'). So I'm quite sceptical about any trend that the 'new' working generation suddenly proclaims.

Your own working life since March 2020 – has it changed significantly, has it settled down now, how do you see it changing in the near future etc?

GK: I left a full-time senior academic position just before the start of lockdown – it was the best thing that ever happened to me professionally. I am lucky to be able to choose the work I do and the people I work with and to work flexibly at home, supervised by my dog! 

Recently, I have been involved in various projects, including developing resources to help social work leaders support staff wellbeing, investigating the wellbeing needs of health practitioners working in the private sector, and developing guidelines to help organisations cope with a suicide or sudden death. 

My academic interest in flexible, remote working continues. My new working situation has influenced my approach and I have had to try to practice what I preach. I have learned that working from home demands effort and effective practices to maintain a healthy balance – and it is a constant struggle.

PB: Not such a substantial change for myself. The emphasis on workplace wellbeing since the pandemic, has actually made work even busier for me. Suddenly I find the issues I've been emphasising for over 30 years – work wellbeing, work stress, work-life balance – are now very popular and organisations are clamouring for their policies and practices to be reviewed and updated. Which is good of course! My husband often comments on the irony that I conduct research about 'work-life balance' when I regularly work long hours, something most academics would be very familiar with!

Wellbeing at Work in a Turbulent Era is published by Edward Elgar Publishing.

We acknowledge the recent passing of Professor Karina Nielsen, who led the final chapter in this book. Her work discussing effective organisational wellbeing interventions is highly influential in our field. Karina was a lovely colleague to work with and we sincerely mourn her passing.