labouring for leisure? achieving work-life balance through compressed working weeks
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Akdeniz Universitesi]On: 21 December 2014, At: 15:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Annals of Leisure ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ranz20
Labouring for leisure? Achieving work-life balance through compressedworking weeksKerry Brown a , Lisa Bradley b , Helen Lingard c , Keith Townsend d
& Sharine Ling ba School of Tourism and Hospitality Management Southern CrossUniversity , Gold Coast, Australiab School of Management Queensland University of Technology ,Brisbane, Australiac Property Construction and Project Management RMIT University ,Melbourne, Australiad Department of Employment Relations Griffith University ,Brisbane, Nathan, AustraliaPublished online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Kerry Brown , Lisa Bradley , Helen Lingard , Keith Townsend & Sharine Ling(2011) Labouring for leisure? Achieving work-life balance through compressed working weeks,Annals of Leisure Research, 14:1, 43-59, DOI: 10.1080/11745398.2011.575046
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2011.575046
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Labouring for leisure? Achieving work-life balance through compressedworking weeks
Kerry Browna*, Lisa Bradleyb, Helen Lingardc, Keith Townsendd and Sharine Linge
aSchool of Tourism and Hospitality Management Southern Cross University, Gold Coast,Australia; bSchool of Management Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia;cProperty Construction and Project Management RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia;dDepartment of Employment Relations Griffith University, Brisbane, Nathan, Australia; eSchoolof Management Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Flexible work practices spreading work times across the entire week have reducedthe time to engage in leisure activities and for some have compounded theproblem of a lack of defined break between work weeks. This study examines timespent outside of the workplace through a multiple case study of working time andleisure in the construction industry. A framework of synchronous leisure is usedto examine the interplay of work and non-work arrangements. The effects ofchanging work arrangements to deliver a longer break between working weeksand the consequent impact on leisure activities are analysed. Interviews and focusgroups across four construction sites revealed that while leisure is important torelieve fatigue and overwork, a work schedule allowing a long break betweenworking weeks, specifically on a weekend, enables workers to achieve synchronoustime, particularly with family, and improves work-life balance satisfaction. It wasfound that a well-defined break across a weekend also offers the opportunity tosynchronize schedules with others to spend time away on short breaks.
Keywords: work life balance; compressed working week; time synchronisation
Introduction
Time for leisure has been eroded by work practices extending the working day and
lengthening the working week (Bittman 2005; Wilson et al. 2007). This study seeks to
determine the effects of this attrition of non-working time for employees through a
study of working time and leisure in the construction industry. It examines how
changes to work arrangements affect the ability to undertake leisure activities.
Drawing upon data collected from four case study research sites, the issues relating to
work-time arrangements, the ability to gain longer stretches of non-working time and
the composition of leisure time are examined. Focus groups and interviews were
undertaken with workers across various construction roles.
Literature review: work and leisure
The balance and mix of work and leisure activities revolve around internal
organizational factors as well as the personal circumstances of the employee.
However, the ability of an employee to negotiate change and adaption in this balance
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Annals of Leisure Research,
Vol. 14, No. 1, April 2011, 43�59
ISSN 1174-5398 print/ISSN 2159-6816 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/11745398.2011.575046
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
may be constrained by working arrangements and job requirements which affect
their ability to match with the ‘free’ times of their partners, families or others with
whom they share activities.
Predictions in the 1970s that there would be an increase in leisure due to
technological advancements (Toffler 1971) have largely not been realized, with
findings that current work patterns appear to disrupt and in some cases, drastically
reduce time for leisure. Characteristic of these changes are an increase in flexible work
schedules driven by management (Perrons 2003), work intensification (Green 2006),
and atypical work schedules (Rubery et al. 2005). As a result, the pervasiveness of
these new types of working arrangements have eroded the boundaries between work
and life and impacted upon the collective organization of work (Perrons 2003).
Furthermore, while changes to the nature and organization of work undoubtedly
have implications for leisure for individuals, the growing number of dual-earner
couples is arguably one of the greatest social changes of the second part of the
twentieth century (Lesnard 2008). As such, this situation has also attracted increasingattention in relation to the consequences for family time and leisure.
The trend towards dual-earner couples presents a number of challenges relating
to family commitments and leisure, which may not have been as prevalent in previous
years. In 2008, 63% of the 2.2 million couple families with co-resident dependent
children were both employed (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008). In view of this,
challenges for childcare and home commitments relate not only to caring
arrangements but to gaining leisure time for family groups. This situation is then
compounded by the need to synchronize different work schedules of family carers.
Dual-couple earners in particular face more challenges with synchronizing joint
family time in comparison to traditional male-breadwinner households (Carriero,
Ghysels, and van Klaveren 2009), especially when work intensification and atypical
work patterns significantly reduce synchronization opportunities.
This study draws upon the concept of synchronous leisure as put forward by
Hallberg (2003) to build a framework for understanding the social dimensions oftime within the concept of work-life balance (WLB). Hallberg (2003) extended the
notion of ‘instantaneous timing’ of activities with others developed by Sullivan in
1996 to determine that synchronous leisure was individually negotiated time enjoyed
together in a social situation away from market and household work. The definition
of synchronous leisure by Hallberg (2003) is adopted in this research � that is, non-
market, non-household work time enjoyed by members of society interacting
together. Asynchronous leisure refers to non-market, non-household time that is
not simultaneous with social partners, especially family or friends (Hallberg 2003;
van Klaveren and van den Brink 2007).
Previous studies of synchronous leisure highlight that labour supply is not only
determined by hours worked, but also by the timing of work which then has flow-on
effects for the ability to co-ordinate leisure with others (Hamermesh 2002; Hallberg
2003). The focus of this prior research is predominately on the preferences for joint-
leisure within dual-earner couples. However, preferences for asynchronous leisure
have also been highlighted especially in relation to parental responsibilities as
desynchronizing time offers the possibility of reducing childcare costs (Hallberg 2003;van Klaveren and van den Brink 2007). Therefore, it is evident that there are benefits
and disadvantages to families in having asynchronous leisure time. These studies
contribute to a better understanding of time use by highlighting the rationale behind
work synchronization and asynchronization and the context in which couples and
44 K. Brown et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
families may prefer one form of timing over the other. Prior research has focused
on couple-negotiated outcomes for time-use, however, the ways in which the
organization of work affects the timing of non-market activities and the consequent
influence on leisure is not as well understood.
Preferences for synchronized leisure
Studies of synchronous leisure find there is a preference for joint-leisure among dual-
earner couples and contend the standard analysis of weekly aggregated hours does
not account for spouses’ togetherness (Hamermesh 2002). While studies have
examined how individuals spend their non-work time, scant attention has been
paid to when people engage in work and non-work activities, and in particular, howspouses time their work hours (Carriero, Ghysels, and van Klaveren 2009). Carriero,
Ghysels, and van Klaveren (2009, 40) argue that ‘. . . it is important not only to
consider time quantities but also the timing of certain activities’. Using US time-use
data from 1973 to 1997, Hamermesh (2002) found that couples attempt to time their
market work in order to enjoy synchronous leisure.
While there is evidence for a preference for joint-leisure, Hallberg’s (2003) study
examining 1984 and 1993 waves of time-use surveys of households in Sweden argues
that testing the synchronization hypothesis may be rendered problematic by simplystudying the correlation in the timing of activities by spouses. This method fails to
account for the extent to which the observed leisure synchronization is a result of
individual timing adjustment, or the effect of the general organization of society such
as office and school hours. Sullivan (1996) and Hallberg (2003) analysed ‘matching’
couples from other couples with a similar life-course and employment status to avoid
this problem. However, these analyses of time synchronization are conducted largely
within an economic framework of analysis. This current research utilizes synchro-
nization theory to offer a social rather an economic perspective on temporalsynchronization. Further, a particular aspect of time synchronization, synchronized
leisure, is used in this study. The effects of changing from working arrangements that
prevent time synchronization with formal weekend breaks to arrangements that
allow synchronization over a week-end are investigated. The resultant balance
between work and non-work activities allowing for weekends can then be examined
within a framework of leisure synchronization.
The benefits of achieving a balance between work and leisure are well recognized,
with studies supporting the value of engaging in leisure time with family and friendsas an important determinant of well-being (Wooden, Warren, and Drago 2009; Allis
and O’Driscoll 2008), social adjustment (Bittman 2005), and family harmony
(Bittman 2005; Shaw and Dawson 2001). However, we argue there are several factors
that influence the ability of employees to synchronize their leisure time with others.
Factors influencing the synchronization of work
While it is evident that individuals prefer to synchronize their leisure time to gain
access to leisure partners, studies also show that demographic and household
characteristics influence the extent to which couples can enjoy synchronous leisure.
For example, when spouses spend time together, those with children might prefer
simultaneous time but not necessarily togetherness to fulfil household chores whilethe other undertakes childcare (Hallberg 2003). In addition to the need to
Annals of Leisure Research 45
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
synchronize household tasks to undertake childcare responsibilities (Hallberg 2003),
studies also show that parents often need to desynchronize their work schedules in
order to take care of children (van Klaveren and van den Brink 2007). The authors
argue that while there is a preference for togetherness which explains why couples
without children synchronize their work times, dual-earner households with children
are often required to desynchronize their work times in order to reduce childcare
costs and take care of children. According to Lesnard (2008, 7), asynchronicity
allows couples to share household chores and caring responsibilities but ‘thischildcare efficiency is at the expense of togetherness’.
Research indicates that the arrival of children negatively impacts on the joint-
leisure time of dual-earner couples by requiring couples to use their time together to
synchronize household tasks (Hallberg 2003) and de-synchronize their work
schedules in order to reduce childcare costs (Lesnard 2008; van Klaveren and van
den Brink 2007). These studies suggest that it is the interplay between synchronizing
and desynchronizing in order to fulfil childcare responsibilities which constrains time
for joint-leisure.Temporal constraints such as those imposed by the employer can also restrict the
ability to engage in joint-leisure. Moreover, this issue has been given scant attention
within the synchronization literature as studies generally are based on an assumption
that many individuals in couples can negotiate work times. In contrast, Lesnard
(2008) argues that desynchronized work schedules arise more from the individual
temporal requirements of employers. While desynchronizing work schedules may be
chosen by couples for childcare reasons, employers or the nature of the industry also
often strongly influence the working hours and work flexibility of individualsresulting in involuntary desynchronization.
Furthermore, synchronous-leisure studies such as Hallberg (2003) restrict their
analysis to weekdays (Monday to Friday) arguing that these are typical working days
for the majority. However, in view of reported increases to non-standard work
schedules and incidences of weekend work (Tausig and Fenwick 2001), greater
consideration of these temporal constraints is vital to extend the current analysis of
synchronous leisure. The argument proposed by Lesnard (2008) that work schedules
which result in non-standard work times also contribute to negative outcomes ofasynchronous leisure is also considered in this research.
Non-standard work times and asynchronous leisure
While there is scant attention to the issue of atypical work schedules that cause
involuntary desynchronization within the synchronous economic literature, the
negative effects of non-standard work times on leisure and family time have been
examined within work-life and leisure literature. Spillover theory holds that in spiteof physical and temporal boundaries between work and family, behaviour and
emotions in one sphere, influence the other either positively or negatively (Edwards
and Rothbard 2000). The increase in flexible work times and long work hours is
argued to impact on the everyday life and social contacts of employees.
Despite the above changes in working patterns, in Australia, the weekend remains
a significant temporal institution for families (Bittman 2005). Failure to participate
in this time due to weekend work significantly diminishes opportunities for social
contact (Garhammer1995). The research findings of Garhammer’s (1995) study inGermany indicate that leisure time is concentrated on Sunday (6 hours) and on
46 K. Brown et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Saturday (4.6 hours). Therefore, employees working on the weekend forego a large
amount of synchronous leisure time. In addition, the triple synchronization of time
for mothers, fathers and children is often hard to achieve during the week, leaving
the weekend as the optimal time for families to synchronize. Further, family time and
togetherness is argued to be vital for family solidarity (Lesnard 2008). Long working
weeks, then, diminish the available time for accessing significant blocks of family
time, thus having the potential to undermine family solidarity.
The benefits of leisure on family life are well understood: free time with one’s
spouse is positively related to marital satisfaction (Voorpostel, van der Lippe, and
Gershuny 2009), family togetherness, enhanced family function, improved commu-
nication, cohesion and a strong sense of family (Shaw and Dawson 2001). Further,
family leisure is valued by all parents and differs from individual leisure (Shaw and
Dawson 2001), as it is less intrinsically motivated and often organized and facilitated
by parents in order to consolidate family solidarity. It is also evident that children
value time spent with their parents. Pocock and Clarke’s (2005) study of how parent’sjobs affect young people, found that children consistently preferred more time with
their parents rather than more money from increased parental work. Duxbury and
Higgins’ (2003) theoretical model of work-life conflict identifies a number of
strategies families may use in order to moderate the negative implications of
long work hours on the family. These include working different hours, technology,
having fewer children, delaying family and the use of other family or individual
coping mechanisms. While such strategies may alleviate negative WLB, increased
attention to the role of leisure may provide a greater understanding behind the
reasons families adopt such strategies.
Milkie et al. (2006) argue that the more hours of paid work, the more likely
parents will experience time strain with their children � with fathers more likely than
mothers to feel time deficits with their children due to their longer working hours. An
area of growing attention is the importance of leisure for non-resident fathers. Sport
and leisure are both physical and social spaces that enable men to fulfil an important
aspect of fatherhood (Harrington 2006) and for many non-resident fathers, leisure isa vital means for them to engage with their children and reassert themselves as
fathers (Jenkins 2009). Therefore, time synchronization barriers that cause indivi-
duals to ‘miss out’ on this time warrants further attention within leisure studies.
In view of the benefits of synchronizing leisure time and the importance of joint
family leisure, it is argued that non-standard work times and long work hours can
have a negative impact on family and individual well-being. Asynchronous leisure is
suggested to cause problems to family and relationship solidarity, although it is found
to be necessary for couples to reduce childcare costs. There is also a growing interest
in understanding other elements of the non-work time of employees, in particular
leisure and personal time. The term ‘work-life balance’ is argued to be limited in its
recognition of leisure, as ‘work’ is often interpreted as paid work while all other non-
work activities such as chores, child-rearing and leisure are bundled into the term
‘life’. A recent study by Ransome (2007) calls for greater attention into how people
place time and energy into other activities outside of market work. Another issue in
addition to couple and family time is that people also need time for themselves.There is growing research into the area of personal or ‘me’ time, where
according to Roberts (2008), people seek to pursue intrinsic interests once chores
and non-market work responsibilities have been fulfilled. This type of ‘time’ is also
reflected in Such’s (2006) concept of lifestyle hierarchies in which many parents are
Annals of Leisure Research 47
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
at the bottom of the ‘lifestyle hierarchy’ as childcare responsibilities and time with
their partner are often prioritized first. This concept could be extended to non-
parents and singles as household tasks and other carer responsibilities form
an important part of everyday activities for all of the population (Such 2006;
van Klaveren and van der Brink 2007).
Limitations of synchronous literature
Studies of synchronicity have several limitations. First, they have tended to focus
on the impact of children on synchronous leisure and are based on the assumption
couples can freely choose when market work is scheduled, which is not the case within
a long work hours’ environment such as the construction industry. Second, studiessuggest a parental response to the need to reduce childcare costs, with scant attention
on the role of firms in influencing synchronous leisure. Third, the focus on dual-
earner couples overlooks synchronization of leisure for singles. Van Klaveren and van
den Brink (2007) suggest that it may be possible that singles try to synchronize their
time with other singles. However, this has yet to be tested empirically. Fourth, few
studies have examined the importance of personal or ‘me’ time in relation to
synchronous leisure, for example, the ability for synchronous leisure to enable more
personal time for individuals. Finally, time use studies examining synchronous leisurefocus on daily rather than weekly patterns of synchronization, with studies such as
Hallberg (2003) suggesting that very few people work on weekend days (Saturday and
Sunday) and therefore this time is less interesting in terms of studying how the trade-
off between leisure and work affects the possibilities for synchronous leisure. In
contrast, van Klaveren and van den Brink (2007, 50) suggest ‘the synchronisation
effects are likely to be larger if we allow for the fact that partners might synchronise
their work times each week or even each month’. In view of this situation, this study
examines the longer-term synchronization of activities over the working weekincluding the weekend. By drawing upon the concept of synchronous leisure and
non-standard work times, the research seeks to understand the role of the firm in
creating or constraining opportunities for synchronous leisure.
Method
A multiple case study design was developed for gathering the empirical data for the
research project. Four large construction projects in Australia operating across
regional and urban settings were chosen through a purposeful sampling strategy. The
required characteristics of the case study sites were that the study be conducted
within an appropriate industry, such as the construction sector. To obtain
information about long weekly work hours, each project was over one-year durationto enable longer-term study and a compressed working week (CWW) to respond to
WLB issues. Each construction case study site comprised an alliance of private
companies and government organizations to provide a mix of partner firms.
The cases were chosen for their project duration of longer than one year to provide
stability of workplaces, although construction projects exhibit some instability of
personnel numbers at the beginning and end of each project. All sites had introduced
a workplace WLB initiative involving compressed working hours. This method
allowed comparison over several different settings but held constant specificcontextual elements as recommended by Yin (1994). Each case was similar in the
48 K. Brown et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
motivation to improve the WLB of their employees. The case studies were
undertaken between 2004 and 2006.
The construction industry is well known for a long work hour’s culture and
significant amounts of unpaid overtime for professionals (Lingard and Francis
2005). The industry features a standard six-day working week, for example, one site
operated on a 57.5-hour week spread over six days (approximately 5�10 hour days
on week days and 7.5 hours on Saturdays). The construction industry is a highly
regulated industry in terms of industrial relations and is characterized by working
hours that include additional payments for overtime (penalty rates). In order to
improve the WLB of employees, each site implemented adaptations of a CWW to
retain the number of hours worked during the week and to maintain penalty rates.
The CWW model adopted and the numbers of participants in each case are
summarized in Table 1.
A case study approach identifying the types of leisure activities was deemed most
suitable for the exploratory purposes of this study (see Yin 1994). Data were collected
through semi-structured interviews and focus groups with workers across a broad
spectrum of roles within each case study site, including managerial, administrative
staff, engineers and skilled and unskilled labourers. Employment categories included
both wage earners and professional (salaried) staff members. The total workforce of
each alliance project was approximately 100�350. The alliance status of the projects
made determining the exact number of employees difficult due to the transitional
nature of the workforce which is guided by project requirements. The interview
schedule was developed to elicit information about the WLB of employees following
the intervention of the CWW and questions included ‘Has there been a change in
your non-work activities since the CWW?’ and ‘How would you describe your work-
life balance now?’ The use of face-to-face semi-structured interviews and focus
groups provided a deeper understanding of participants’ perceptions as suggested
by Maykut and Morehouse (1994). These techniques complemented the case analysis
approach as the focus was on human experiences and, as outlined by Yin (1994, 84),
should therefore be examined through the reported perceptions of interviewees.
Table 1. Summary of compressed working week models adopted across site studies.
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Compressionmechanism
Compulsoryfive-day week withone hour extraeach working day(Mon�Fri).
Five-day weekwith no additionalhours. Five-dayweekdiscontinued.
Five-day week onan ad-hoc basisdepending on theemployee’sfamily needs androle flexibility.
Compulsoryfive-day week withadditional 30minutes added perday (Mon�Fri).Roster of oneSaturday permonth.
Datacollectionmethod
Interviews n �33Time 1: 19participantsTime 2: Of theinitial 19participants 14were interviewedagain threemonths later.
Interviews n �16 Interviewsn �10
Participants n �56Focus groups of14�4Four rounds ofinterviews andsame participantsinterviewed in eachround.
Annals of Leisure Research 49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
The data collection approach varied among the sites as access was determined
through negotiation with management. In order to understand the effect of such
change on the WLB of employees, semi-structured interviews and focus groups were
conducted three months after the intervention of the CWW across the four
construction sites. The opportunity to collect data at different stages after the
intervention was available in some cases (see Table 1).
Content analysis as recommended was used to identify and categorize primary
patterns in the data (Miles and Huberman 1984). As the themes emerged, constantcomparisons method was applied to compare the observations and verify the
consistency of the reported phenomena (Cavana, Delahaye, and Sekaran 2001, 170).
Findings
The purpose of this research was to examine the impact of a work schedule change
on the WLB of employees. A constraint to the types of WLB initiatives that could be
offered was that the new policy could not significantly reduce the number of work
hours across the week, as salary levels for those being paid an hourly rate would
reduce correspondingly. The CWW provided a new way of working that achieved
retention of existing weekly salary levels, improved satisfaction with working
arrangements and enabled the participants to have an increased block of leisuretime over a weekend. Participants reported the new working arrangements not only
increased time for leisure, but a new range of leisure activities were able to be
undertaken. These activities were mainly derived from spending time together with
family members. It was found that temporal re-organization of working arrange-
ments impacts on leisure participation, and importantly, the co-ordination of timing
with others supports the proposition that synchronous leisure increases satisfaction
with WLB.
The findings in relation to the impact on the way in which employees experiencedtheir leisure time following the intervention are outlined in Table 2 and described in
the following sections.
Weekend trips
The longer break and time with family encouraged employees to organize weekend
trips away. One participant recounted that when his partner works every second
weekend shift he stays at home with the children, however, when she does not work a
Saturday shift, they will all go away. This outcome highlights the importance of
synchronized leisure for activities such as weekend trips. In response to the question,
‘what routines have changed since the introduction of the five-day week?’, a
participant noted that: ‘We definitely try to go away more, try to make a point ofmaking the most of the weekends we have got’ (Site 4o F, 0 C).1 Another similarly
noted that with the two-day break they more often plan long-term trips such as
camping or boating which would have been harder to achieve under the six-day week
(Site 1m M, C). However, this was not only found to be important for families, as
couples and singles also made use of the extra time to travel: ‘Now I will try and get
away most weekends which is great’ (Site 4q F, 0 C).
Going away to the beach (Site 4l M, 0 C), camping (Site 4m M, 0 C) and going on
weekend motorcycle trips (Site 2a M, 0 C) were some other breaks away reported bysingles and couples that increased after the implementation of the CWW.
50 K. Brown et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Table 2. Increased activities following introduction of compressed working week.
Reported increase in activity
P
Site 1: No weekend work
Increase in hours Mon�Fri P
Site 2: No weekend work until
five-day week failed
No increase in hours Mon�Fri P
Site 3: Partial weekend
work ad-hoc
No increase in hours
Mon�Fri P
Site 4: One weekend a month
Increase in hours Mon�Fri
1aMNC Beach, socializing, weekend
trips 1
2aMNC Family time, ride Harley,
weekend trips 2
3aMNC Family time, camping,
day trips 4
4aMNC Socialising, fishing 1
1bMNC Rest, socializing, family 3 2bMC Family time 4 3bMNC Time with partner 5 4bMNC Dinner with partner, time with partner 5
1cMNC Socializing, time for self 8 2cMC Family time, watch children’s
sport 5
3cMNC Camping 7 4cMNC Reading novels, housework, socializing,
relaxing 3
1dMNC Surfing, weekend trips,
socializing, rock climbing,
Running 12
2dMC Time with children, watch
children’s sport 6
3dFNC Socialising, personal
time 1
4dM NC Rest, socializing 7
1eMNC Socialising 14 2eMC Time with wife 7 3eFNC Personal time 2 4eMNC Fishing 10
1fFNC Couple time, socializing 13 2fMC Relaxation, gardening,
family time 8
3fFNC Housework, washing 6 4fMNC Go to bank, time with partner 11
1gMC Family camping 2 2gMC Time with children, watch
children sport, family time 1
3gMC Quality family time,
weekend trips, take son
to music lesson 3
4gMNC Time with partner, down time, hobbies 12
1hMC Time with children, gardening 4 2hFC Family time 3 3hMC Time with children 8 4hMNC Rest, recovery 15
1iMC Time with children, weekend
trips 6
4iMNC Gardening 16
1jMC Watch children’s soccer, family
time 7
4jMNC Socialising, rest 18
1kMC Family time, socializing, time
with children 9
4kMNC Relaxation 20
1lMC Family time, watch children’s
sport, relaxation time, sleep in
10
4lMNC Socializing, beach 21
1mMC Camping, time with child 11 4mMNC Socializing, family time, weekend trips
23
1nFC Time with child, reading,
shopping 5
4nMNC Socializing, time with girlfriend, search
for property 24
Io MC Time with children 15 4oFNC Weekend trips 2
An
na
lso
fL
eisure
Resea
rch5
1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Table 2 (Continued )
Reported increase in activity
P
Site 1: No weekend work
Increase in hours Mon�Fri P
Site 2: No weekend work until
five-day week failed
No increase in hours Mon�Fri P
Site 3: Partial weekend
work ad-hoc
No increase in hours
Mon�Fri P
Site 4: One weekend a month
Increase in hours Mon�Fri
4pFNC Relaxation, enjoyable activities 4
4qFNC Socializing, trips to coast 6
4rFNC Time with partner, time for self, family
and friends, exercise 13
4sFNC Socializing, rest 14
4tFNC Socializing, time for self, reading,
walking 19
4uMC Take kids to sport, beach, relaxation
(personal time) 8
4vMC Time with kids, take children to soccer
17
4wMC Family time, watch son play sport,
fishing with son, sleep in 22
4xFC Family time, sleep in 9
FG No. 4 Time with children 25
FG No. 3 Shopping, socializing, gardening,
family time, surfing 26
FG No. 2 Socializing, rest, movies 27
FG No. 1 Family time, time with children 28
M �male; F � female; NC �no children; C �children.
52
K.
Bro
wn
eta
l.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Taking children to sport
Synchronized activities such as taking kids to sporting games were a strongly reported
benefit of the CWW, especially among fathers. When working the six-day week,
fathers often ‘missed out’ on seeing their children play sport or being able to take
them to other extra-curricular activities as these are often scheduled on Saturday:
I get more time with the boys on the weekend. I go to soccer and sport with them. Thatis more [sic] I wanted it for. Kids don’t play sport on Sundays, or very rarely, it is allSaturday. If I work every Saturday, you don’t get to see them grow up playing sport.(Site 4v M, C)
The importance of engaging in these activities with their children was a
significant benefit of the CWW as team sports are often traditionally scheduled on
Saturday. As one participant responded when asked what activities increased on the
weekends under the CWW:
Take my son to music lessons, take my wife shopping. . .there are only certain things youcan do [on] the weekends, and with the kids at school you are governed by when they areavailable . . . so that stuff is on the weekend. (Site 4w M, C)
Similarly, another participant responded when asked if there were any noticeable
changes to his life since the CWW: ‘Just having the Saturday off is the main thing,
doing more with the boys at home. You get to take them to sport or soccer’ (Site 4u
M, C). The interviews revealed that spending time with children on Saturday was a
significant benefit across all four cases, as during the week this time was restricted by
long work hours and school schedules.
Family time and socializing
Time with family and socializing also increased for both those with children and
singles. Those with children found that the extra time was beneficial to family time,
with many expressing their satisfaction with the change: ‘You can go to things the
kids are doing instead of just hearing about them’ (Site 1j M, C); ‘It’s so much easier
to play family life’ (S 4v M, C); and ‘We’ve got a two year old boy � if you are away
for that Saturday morning, you miss out on a lot more’ (Site 1m M, C). The
participants also reported increased satisfaction by their partners and children with
the greater opportunity for family time:
[Partner] reckons it is better because you are home more for the kids. You become closerI think. Yes! Because you are doing more things together, rather than just her and kidsdoing it because you are not there on Saturday. (Site 1h M, C)
The ability to engage in activities with family particularly, on a weekend was a
major reported benefit of the CWW. As one participant responded when asked if
working Sunday or Monday would also provide benefits: ‘I don’t think it would
work, because you have got people with kids, you have got people with other
commitments . . . changing in that sense just wouldn’t work’ (Site 4, Focus Group1).
This illustrates some of the benefits of CWW to workers in allowing time off with
others, in particular when their children also had time off, ‘My weekends are for
Annals of Leisure Research 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
them (children)’ (Site 1i M, C). It was found that it was not so much the number of
working hours but how they are arranged, as an increase in family time was an
important benefit for families, ‘My wife and I will go and watch our son play sport.
So it is more family orientated than I think it initially was . . . I am extremely happy’
(Site 1l M, C). Furthermore, one participant expressed that he preferred the longer
hours during the week compared to during the weekend, as ‘That is the time when
everyone else has time off ’ (Site 43 Focus Group).
While family time increased for many families after the introduction of the CWW,
the extra time on the weekend also enabled greater opportunities for socialization for
all participants including couples without children and singles. As one participant
noted: ‘Even the guys that don’t have a young family, they have a social life’ (Site
4d M, 0 C.) Another participant, whose partner is a school teacher, explained that
the CWW is an added bonus as his wife never worked weekends and therefore: ‘It is a
lot better me not working weekends’ (Site 3b M, 0 C).
The five-day week enabled couples and singles to spend time together, and
with friends who also generally have the weekend off: ‘We socialise with friends a
bit more now that we have the two-day weekend. I find it personally, very good’
(Site 4c M, 0 C).
The six-day week created asynchronicity with regard to socialization time and
also restricted time available for joint-leisure. The five-day week encouraged more
socialization with many citing an increase in meeting friends and family: ‘When I
used to work six-days a week, have one day off, I would have the one day off to
unwind, so I would never socialise, never have the opportunity to see family, all that
sort of thing’ (Site 1b M, 0 C).
When asked what activities had increased since the CWW, more family activities
and social interaction were common in all study sites, with comments such as:
‘I would say leisure time with family and friends would have moved up the scale’
(Site 4r F, 0 C). Being able to engage in family time and socialization was
a significant benefit reported by the entire range of participants, from families,
couples and singles. The CWW, in reducing the length of the working week,
enabled time off to coincide with other people’s time off on the formal break of a
weekend.
Leisure activities
An increase in time for personal activities after the introduction of the CWW was
reported for both workers with families and singles. The importance of time out for
‘self ’ is reflected in the following comment:
When you work every Saturday . . . you only get the one day, and by the time you get thefamily commitments in, you don’t get time for yourself, if you know what I mean.Everyone needs their own time, whether you are married with six kids or one kid, youstill need that. . .. (Site 4u M, C) [emphasis added]
The CWW enabled more personal time by allowing a greater stretch of time to
fulfil other activities. An increase in personal time was also attributed to the ability
to more evenly share childcare responsibilities, allowing one partner to have time
for ‘self ’:
54 K. Brown et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
My wife went out last Saturday and had lunch with the kindy ladies, because I washome . . . It allows her to have a little bit of her free time more and as well as myself. (Site4u M, C)
Say the wife wants to go shopping or get her hair done . . . during the week she is tied upwith certain commitments, so on the weekend I look after the kids so that she can havesome time on her own . . . Give her a break. (Site 3g M, C)
While the CWW allowed couples to organize personal time for themselves, it also
enabled more personal time through the synchronization of activities that occur on
Saturdays, for example, team sport. One father commented that since the
introduction of the CWW he is able to play soccer: ‘. . .all soccer matches now on
Saturday. Except for the Saturday we work the RDO. . .When you work six-day[s]
that just gets out of control’ (Site 1h M, C).
One participant noted that the weekend allowed more control over his time to ‘do
the things that I want to do’ (Site 4p F, 0 C). Similarly, another expressed that there is
less pressure knowing that there is the weekend to pursue personal interests (Site 4n
M, 0 C). The ability to engage in personal time as a result of the CWW is also
reflected in the following comment: ‘I love time out for me, so it [CWW] actually
gives time to have time out for me’ (Site 4t F, 0 C).
Preference for a six-day week
Because the five-day week meant that some wage employees missed out on Saturday
penalty rates, a small minority of participants from the four sites opposed the change:
‘A few of our blokes would like to work some of the Saturdays just to get more money,
but generally in our crew they seem pretty happy with it’ (Site 4f M, 0 C).
One wage employee expressed his preference for the six-day week explaining that:
‘I like the six days because the Saturday is the day we make our money*and that’s
cream, because that’s when you get all your penalty rates. It’s easy money, its money
in the bank’ (Site 1o M, C). While there was overwhelming support for the CWW, the
issue of losing penalty rates was raised in all cases, but it was only opposed by two
participants.
Analysis and discussion
The full weekend allowed the longest break of time for leisure activities. Not being
able to engage in the full weekend was found to negatively impact synchronous
leisure for families, couples and singles. Fathers in particular, recounted the ‘lost’
time with their children as a result of the six-day week. Being unable to take the
children to sport was a common complaint as participation in sport activities
are generally organized on Saturday. The reported importance of engaging in this
time with their children supports studies which highlight the leisure space as an
important aspect of fatherhood, in particular for non-resident fathers (Jenkins 2009).
The findings also indicate that there was strong support for the CWW to
deliver synchronized leisure time over a ‘long break’ for employees working in a
high-pressure industry sector characterized by long working hours. An increase in
time spent with others is attributed to the employees’ ability to more easily access
synchronized leisure.
Annals of Leisure Research 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Time with others
While the long work hours were compressed into the typical five-day working week,
employees were supportive of the way the added time on the weekend allowed themto undertake a wide range of activities. These were particularly related to being able
to participate more in enjoyable social activities with family and friends. In line with
Hallberg (2003) and Hamermesh (2002), it is evident that employees prefer joint-
leisure time. However, in contrast, the findings of this study illustrate the critical role
of the organization in delivering this time rather than assuming employee negotiation
and control over work hours. The CWW enabled synchronous leisure which
improved employee well-being and family relationships and it is evident from the
findings of this study that such a workplace initiative can alleviate the negative effectsof long work hours without reducing the total number of hours worked.
Time away
The CWW also enabled the participants’ greater ability to ‘escape’ and go on
weekend trips. Going away for the weekend is dependent on synchronous leisure and
supports La Valle et al.’s (2002) study which found that atypical work practices
impact on the frequency of family holidays. It is interesting to note that the
participants who were able to enjoy a more stable CWW cited more weekend trips
away compared to those under an ad-hoc CWW arrangement. Those who were notable to gain frequent and scheduled weekend breaks tended to report only increases
in family time with less focus on weekend trips away.
Time for self
The importance and value of personal time was also highlighted in the findings.
While it is evident that people prefer joint-leisure, it is apparent that personal time is
valued and that this time was more achievable under the CWW model, either
through (1) being able to look after children while one partner had a break, or (2)
having more time to fulfil chores and childcare responsibilities and therefore leavingmore space for personal time. This result highlights the importance and relevance of
the concept of lifestyle hierarchies (Such 2006), where often personal time is at
the bottom of the hierarchy and not often accessed because of pressures to undertake
other activities. Lifestyle hierarchies explain the situation for many of the
participants in this study. However, the CWW enabled them to attain personal
time due to the extra time afforded during the weekend. La Valle et al. (2002) suggest
that forgoing time for leisure, rest or partner time are ways that parents compensate
for the lack of time spent with their children, but it is evident the CWW provided away to overcome this trade-off.
The findings of this study highlight that the CWW, although in different formats,
yielded similar responses in activities undertaken by the participants. Time with
others was found to be the most important aspect of synchronous time reported by
participants. The findings show that family time, taking children to sport, weekend
trips and personal time were activities enjoyed by the participants following the
implementation of the CWW. The ‘long break’ particularly on the weekend allowed
the employees to participate in organized regular activities with their children as theywere able to align their time with the set times of weekend sport. Furthermore, the
56 K. Brown et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
CWW enabled those with children to more evenly share caring activities to allow for
personal time.
The CWW not only provided a longer break that benefited the participants, the
opportunity to synchronize leisure time with others in particular yielded positive
benefits for WLB. In examining the role of the CWW in delivering these benefits, this
research provides an alternative framework to analyse synchronous leisure, as it
examines the firm’s role, and challenges the assumption prevalent in synchronous
leisure literature that employees have the freedom to negotiate work times. Theseinsights into how employers may constrain synchronous leisure through non-
standard work schedules extend the current focus on dual-earner couples with
childcare responsibilities by examining the impacts on couples and singles. Last, this
research extends the current analyses from daily synchronization to include weekend
work, thus uniquely contributing to the literature on synchronous leisure.
Conclusion
Research findings indicate gaining leisure across a longer time-frame is important to
workers and a key element to achieving satisfactory WLB for employees, especially
when this time is synchronized with family members and friends. The effect of the
CWW was to improve the ability of the employees to gain weekend breaks, however,
not all sites were able to achieve a CWW that delivered a consistent five-day week.
Findings indicated a consistent rather than an ad-hoc CWW yields more positive
results especially in terms of being able to undertake weekend trips. Overall, the
findings from the different sites, however, supports the proposition that people preferjoint-leisure time and that family time is important for family relationships and
individual well-being, especially when activities are synchronized within the
structured breaks of weekends. Furthermore, the findings support the importance
of personal time and illustrate the role of synchronous leisure in achieving this time.
While studies of synchronous leisure argue that dual-earner couples may prefer
asynchronous leisure in order to reduce the costs and burden of childcare, these
studies largely focus on weekdays when school-aged children’s hours coincide with
business hours. This research illustrates the negative impacts of the ‘lost’ weekendwhen working long work weeks. It also highlights that when working time
arrangements allow long breaks even with long working hours, better WLB ensues.
Further studies in this area would benefit from extending the current analysis into
other industry sectors and investigating the standard work week to understand how
CWW might impact on WLB. Furthermore, in examining personal time in relation to
synchronized leisure, it is suggested that an important aspect of WLB is synchronous
leisure that allows more personal time. Future studies could explore the effect of
personal time on personal and work productivity, including identifying the elementsof the construct and how to achieve a satisfactory ‘personal time’ experience.
Research into CWWs that deliver weekend breaks or possible organizational
alternatives that deliver a constellation of hours that encourage synchronous leisure
would enhance knowledge in this area. It is concluded that organizational policy and
work schedule programs that recognize non-work activities and the requirement for
the co-ordination of timing with others can have a large impact on satisfaction with
WLB and the ability to undertake leisure activities. Further, it was found that long
working hours per se do not decrease satisfaction with WLB, but the inability togarner longer blocks of non-work time and co-ordinate social time with others
Annals of Leisure Research 57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
creates fatigue and dissatisfaction with the balance of work and non-work activities.
The provision of a long break of two-days, together with the temporal ordering of
long working hours to coincide with recognized long breaks, delivers satisfaction
with WLB and greater ability to participate in leisure activities. Findings indicate
that being unable to enjoy a ‘long break’ and more importantly, synchronous leisure,
may be a greater barrier to WLB than the total number of hours worked. Weekend
trips away, positive family relationships and socialization activities are largely
dependent on being able to attain synchronous leisure with social others, especially
family. As such, time synchronicity has significant implications for leisure-related
travel and tourism and social policy, and thus warrants greater attention.
Note
1. Quotation references refer to Site, Gender, and Children.
Notes on contributors
Kerry Brown is Professor, School of Tourism and Hospitality Management and Director of theCentre for Tourism, Leisure and Work, Southern Cross University, Australia (Southern CrossDrive, Bilinga, 4225, Australia Email: [email protected] tel. �61755893113). Researchinterests: work life balance, public policy and management, industry clusters.
Lisa Bradley is Professor and Head, QUT Business School, Management, QueenslandUniversity of Technology, Australia. Research interests: human resource management,organisational behaviour, work organization.
Helen Lingard is Professor, Property and Construction Management, RMIT, Melbourne.Research interests: work life balance, construction industry, occupational health and safety.Keith Townsend is Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of Employment Relations,Griffith University, Nathan, Australia. Research interests: labour-management relations,work/leisure studies.
Sharine Ling is a Doctoral candidate in the Centre for Philanthropy and NonProfit Studies,Queensland University of Technology. Research interests: social innovation and socialentrepreurship.
References
Allis, P., and M. O’Driscoll. 2008. Positive effects of nonwork-to-work facilitation on well-being in work, family and personal domains. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23, no. 3:273�91.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2008. Family characteristics and transitions, Australia 2006�07. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4442.0 (accessed September 29, 2009).
Bittman, M. 2005. Sunday working and family time. Labour and Industry 16, no. 1: 59�81.Carriero, R., J. Ghysels, and C. van Klaveren. 2009. Do parents coordinate their work
schedules? A comparison of Dutch, Flemish, and Italian dual-earner households.European Sociological Review 25, no. 5: 603�17.
Cavana, R.Y., B.L. Delahaye, and U. Sekaran. 2001. Applied business research: Qualitative andquantitative methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Duxbury, L., and C. Higgins. 2003. Work-life conflict in Canada in the new millennium. Vol.status report. Ottawa: Health Canada.
58 K. Brown et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
Edwards, J.R., and N.P. Rothbard. 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying therelationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review 25,no. 1: 178�99.
Garhammer, M. 1995. Changes in working hours in Germany. Time and Society 4, no. 2: 167�203.Green, F. 2006. Demanding work: The paradox of job quality in the affluent economy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.Hallberg, D. 2003. Synchronous leisure, jointness and household labor supply. Labour
Economics 10, no. 2: 185�203.Hamermesh, D.S. 2002. Timing togetherness and time windfalls. Journal of Population
Economics 15, no. 4: 601�23.Harrington, M. 2006. Sport and leisure as contexts for fathering in Australian families’ leisure.
Leisure Studies 25, no. 2: 165�83.Jenkins, J.M. 2009. Nonresident fathers’ leisure with their children. Leisure Sciences 31: 255�71.Jenkins, S., and L. Osberg. 2005. Nobody to play with? The implications of leisure
coordination. In The economics of time use, ed. D. Hamermesh and G. Pfann. Amsterdam:Elsevier.
La Valle, I., S. Arthur, C. Millward, J. Scott, and M. Clayden. 2002. Happy families? Atypicalwork and its influence on family life. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Lesnard, L. 2008. Off-scheduling within dual-earner couples: An unequal and negativeexternality for family time. American Journal of Sociology 114, no. 2: 447�90.
Lingard, H.C., and V. Francis. 2005. The decline of the ‘traditional’ family: Work-life benefitsas a means of promoting a diverse workforce in the construction industry of Australia.Construction Management and Economics 23, no. 10: 1045�57.
Maykut, P., and R. Morehouse. 1994. Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic andpractical guide. London: The Falmer Press.
Miles, M.B., and M.A. Huberman. 1984. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of newmethods. London: Sage Publications.
Milkie, M., M. Mattingly, K. Nomaguchi, S. Bianchi, and J. Robinson. 2006. The timesqueeze: Parental statuses and feelings about time with children. Journal of Marriage andFamily 66: 739�61.
Perrons, D. 2003. The new economy and the work-life balance: Conceptual explorations and acase study of new media. Gender. Work and Organization 10, no. 1: 65�93.
Pocock, B., and J. Clarke. 2005. Time, money and job spillover: How parents’ jobs affectyoung people. The Journal of Industrial Relations 47, no. 1: 62�76.
Ransome, P. 2007. Conceptualizing boundaries between ‘life’ and ‘work’. International Journalof Human Resource Management 18, no. 3: 374�86.
Roberts, E. 2008. Time and work-life balance: The roles of’temporal customization’ and’lifetemporality’. Gender. Work and Organization 15, no. 5: 430�53.
Rubery, J., K. Ward, D. Grimshaw, and H. Beynon. 2005. Working time, industrial relationsand the employment relationship. Time Society 14, no. 1: 89�111.
Shaw, S.M., and D. Dawson. 2001. Purposive leisure: Examining parental discourses on familyactivities. Leisure Sciences 23: 217�31.
Such, E. 2006. Leisure and fatherhood in dual-earner families. Leisure Studies 25, no. 2: 185�99.Sullivan, O. 1996. Time co-ordination, the domestic division of labour and affective relations:
Time use and the enjoyment of activities within couples. Sociology 30, no. 1: 79�100.Tausig, M., and R. Fenwick. 2001. Unbinding time: Alternate work schedules and work-life
balance. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 22, no. 2: 101�19.Toffler, A. 1971. Future shock. London: Pan Books.van Klaveren, C., and H. van den Brink. 2007. Intra-household work time synchronization.
Social Indicators Research 84, no. 1: 39�52.Voorpostel, M., T. van der Lippe, and J. Gershuny. 2009. Trends in free time with a partner: A
transformation of intimacy. Social Indicators Research 93, no. 1: 65�169.Wilson, M.G., A. Polzer-Debruyne, S. Chen, and S. Fernandes. 2007. Shift work interventions
for reduced work-family conflict. Employee Relations 29, no. 2: 162�77.Wooden, M., D. Warren, and R. Drago. 2009. Working time mismatch and subjective well-
being. British Journal of Industrial Relations 47, no. 1: 147�79.Yin, R.K. 1994. Case study research design and methods, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.
Annals of Leisure Research 59
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Akd
eniz
Uni
vers
itesi
] at
15:
42 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014