Results are in from our poll of a few weeks ago in Where Have You Gone,
Work-Life Balance? and here are the results (multiple answers were
permitted):
Since it’s hard to read, here are the results in order of popularity. The
question, again, was “Work-life balance is:”
- flatly incompatible with firms performing at the highest level–39
votes - compatible with high performance if it helps retain talent–29 votes
- so last August–26
- achievable in firms of all stripes given flexibility–20
- a useful notion only in the “lifestyle” cohort of firms–15
- an indulgence affordable to firms only in times of high lawyer demand–14
- a weak accomodation to lawyers who aren’t serious–10
- a humane and “evergreen” virtue responsive to reality–9
- a disservice to high-performing professionals–8
What may we conclude?
Most striking to me is the honest, and fairly emphatic, disagreement over
whether or not work-life balance is compatible with high performance. Lacking
any a priori hypothesis as to why this might be so, I’m tempted to
fall back on the explanation that people may simply be reporting on their own
experiences. That is to say, if one has sacrificed mightily in terms
of family life to be a high performer, one probably thinks that’s the way the
world works and that work-life balance is accordingly incompatible with being
at the top of one’s game. Conversely, if one has had the benefit of at
least a period of decreased demands, one may believe everyone should be able
to accomplish that as well.
Here’s another way of slicing the results, however: If you add up all
the votes cast for a “negative” view of W-LB vs. all those cast for a “positive”
view, you get:
- Negative: 112
- Positive: 58
or nearly a 2:1 ratio of negative to positive views. (I count “so last
August” as negative, since it fairly strongly implies the issue is dead for
now.)
High performers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your
work-life balance.
