Workplaces focus on individual behaviour as a measure of work/ life balance. Social science places the issue of health and wellbeing in a broader socioeconomic context.

Corporations place strong emphasis on work/ life balance. A social science analysis of Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” finds that work/ life balance is among the key features emphasised in corporate messages to attract workers. Yet work/ life balance functions as an ideology (a system of beliefs used to legitimise the interests of dominant groups). This ideology contains four interconnected ideas that, on the surface, seem to give individuals greater flexibility, but in practice tighten corporate control over workers’ personal lives:

1. Work is the most important element of life;
2. Life means family;
3. Individuals are responsible for work/ life balance; and
4. Organisations control work/life programs.

Working excessive hours, burnout, and other psychological symptoms of worker exhaustion are often framed around individual practices. That is, a failure of the individual worker to manage work/ life balance. This framing is the outcome of capitalism, which focuses on individualism and free will, rather than on how market forces shape unfair working conditions. A common refrain is: “You’ve just got to say ‘no’ more.” This logic allows institutions exploit labour without taking responsibility for staff wellbeing.

Most corporate organisations have many surveillance tools to manage workers’ time and resources. This includes timesheets, project plans, and other technologies. These systems quantify work deliverables, outputs and hours worked. There is no way for workers to over work without these systems registering imbalance, especially when weekly reports monitor these figures.

There are also various weekly meetings where workload is discussed, distributed, and logged.

Moreover, corporate organisations place large emphasis on seeking help from managers. Staff are encouraged to use flexible work arrangements. Corporate messages acknowledge the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on wellbeing.

Given these processes, workers should not have to push forward in unfair conditions, and make a business case to have their health and wellbeing prioritised.

Capitalism encourages the atomisation and alienation of the workforce. Worker rights are wrapped up in discourse of choice – individuals should speak up if they have a problem, report issues to human services, or find other work if they cannot negotiate better outcomes. With this comes the assumption that this “choice” has equal impact on everybody, even though research shows that structural barriers impede women’s work/life balance, and minority women have “additional cultural, community or religious demands” that impact their workplace experiences of work/life balance. Then there are power dynamics, when workers are individually battling people with greater authority (managers, human services) to have their workplace rights and welfare recognised.

Individualist approaches to work/life balance is a discourse that perpetuates the status quo (that is, a structured way of thinking that serves the interests of elite groups). This narrative practice allows the system of inequity to continue unchanged, because change requires individuals to report problems, rather than workplace structures and governance making progressive changes so that problems do not arise in the first place.

Rather than expecting individuals to bear the brunt of inequity, it’s better to:

1. Ask questions about how the workplace could be better organised
2. Respond swiftly and compassionately to immediate problems; and
3. Create positive change now, so poor conditions never arise in the future.