orgstrategieschapter2007

ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES

FOR NETWORK WEAVING

WORK-LIFE INTEGRATION INTO

24/7 CULTURES

Mindy L. Gewirtz and Mindy Fried

ABSTRACT

The past few decades has seen the proliferation of ‘‘family-friendly’’ poli-

cies incorporated into the workplace to promote the recruitment and re-

tention of women for whom time to take care of families and elders has

been primary. Despite the increase of women in high-level professions,

many organizations have cultures that still do not support work-life in-

tegration. We propose a paradigmatic shift from family-friendly policy

development and solutions focused on compliance transactions – to what

we call ‘‘strategic organizational development and transformational

change.’’ We take the argument one step further and suggest three power-

ful organization intervention strategies to build the culture’s capacity to

accomplish the business strategy, while weaving work-life integration into

the DNA of the 24/7 culture.

Workplace Temporalities

Research in the Sociology of Work, Volume 17, 497–525

r 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

ISSN: 0277-2833/doi:10.1016/S0277-2833(07)17016-3

497

dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-2833(07)17016-3.3d

dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-2833(07)17016-3.3d

MINDY L. GEWIRTZ AND MINDY FRIED498

The dramatic rise of women’s employment over the past few decades hasmotivated private and public sector employers to develop ‘‘family-friendly’’policies that are aimed at attracting and retaining female workers. Despitethe increase of women in high-level professions, many organizations havecultures that do not support work-life integration. In fact, the culture ofmost workplaces still equates long hours with loyalty and commitment,which impedes the use of policies aimed at integrating work and personalspheres.

Clients have been telling us for years that they would prefer working thetraditional workweek hours rather than the culturally accepted norm ofworking many longer hours. Recently we have been hearing more similarconcerns from men (who had children) at least in the high-tech and pro-fessional services. Results of the study, Generation and Gender in theWorkplace (Families and Work Institute, 2004) support anecdotal know-ledge, as 80 percent of college-educated employees indicated a preference forworking fewer hours of paid and unpaid time, meaning the hours scheduled

to work rather than the hours they actually are working.In addition, many men and women of the X (late teens and twenty-

something) and Y (late twenties to early forties) generations are redefining‘‘success’’ as having more personal and family time, as suggested by Trunk(2006) and Kamenetz (2006). Generation X and Y employees are not buyinginto the baby-boomer definition of the American Dream that was realized atthe sacrifice of family and personal time. This necessitates removing culturalbarriers and building what we call ‘‘life-friendly’’ workplaces, where successis equated with adding value and results rather than face-time. Removingcultural barriers remains difficult, and cannot be achieved by simply cre-ating family-friendly policies.

We propose a paradigmatic shift from policy development and solutions,focused on compliance transactions, to what we call ‘‘strategic organiza-tional development and transformational change.’’ We argue that sustain-able organizational change, that is, creating a workplace that supportswork-life integration, requires a deliberate organizational development(OD) intervention process. This process is aimed at both ensuring that thereare policies in place that support employees’ work-life integration, and deve-loping organizational capability to support their use. We also take thisargument one step further and suggest powerful organization interventionstrategies to build the culture’s capacity to accomplish the business strategy,while weaving work-life integration into the DNA of the 24/7 culture.

Organizational development strategies can drive the deeper cultural cap-ability that work-life practitioners and policymakers are trying to achieve

Organizational Strategies for Network Weaving Work-Life 499

in the workplace. Furthermore, OD practitioners, who partner withsenior leaders and become trusted advisors, are well positioned to weavework life into the culture of the team or organization. We strongly believethat organizational change within the work-life field requires the kindof deep collaboration and culture change that emerges from OD interven-tions. We propose that work-life practitioners, OD practitioners andresearchers collaborate to identify ways to strengthen practice and out-comes.

This chapter explores three different examples and roadmaps of organ-izational strategies for network weaving work-life integration into the cul-ture of organizations. Their common focus is using internal networks toweave work-life integration into achieving the business strategy. Internalnetworks are defined as collaborative work systems that exist (or are cre-ated) inside organizations and linked together to achieve a common goalneither could have achieved alone. The first example is a case study of astrategic OD intervention in a global manufacturing company that actuallytransitioned to a 24/7 operation. In this case, the strategic organization-wideintervention evolved opportunistically as part of an integrated response to abusiness crisis. This involved engaging two separate networks of union andmanagement to link together to create a new temporal structure inside theorganization that satisfied both business demands and work-life integrationfor employees. Each network consisted of both formal and informal groupsthat had to be engaged to make the transition a success. (Porath, Gewirtz, &Gumpert, 1999).

The second organizational intervention suggests a roadmap managers canuse for weaving work-life integration into specific work groups regardless ofwhat happens elsewhere in the organization. This involves helping teamsunderstand that they are, in effect, mini-networks rather than just a group offolks working together. As individual teams begin to consider themselves asa network and part of a larger network, opportunities for thinking outsidethe box about work-life integration more easily develop.

The third example describes a prototype for a potential planned systemic-wide organizational intervention. The roadmap we propose systemicallyweaves work-life integration into the larger human resources culture capa-bility-building strategy for 24/7 organizations. This intervention also usesthe concept of linking internal networks to sustain work-life integration inorganizations that do not literally work around the clock as in manufac-turing systems. Rather, these are organizations that are often tethered bytechnology to working 24/7, as for example in high-tech, life sciences andfinancial services.


CASE STUDY: FROM CHILD CARE PLANNING TO A

SUCCESSFUL 24/7 OPERATION

Tensions, Obstacles and Solutions in a Strategic Organization-Wide

Intervention1

The case study of a strategic, organization-wide work-life intervention con-ducted by Mindy G. at TexTech, explores the resistance, obstacles and lessonslearned. Ultimately, overcoming many ‘‘bumps in the road,’’ the interventionbenefited hourly, supervisory and management human capital and resulted ina positive, measurable business impact. This story begins like many do in thebusiness of work-life consulting. A $500 million global manufacturing com-pany, which we call TexTech, and at the time employed 3,000 people, hiredMindy G. to help them develop an on-site early childhood education center.

TexTech manufactured and branded high-tech textile products, position-ing itself as an innovative market leader in performance apparel. Theirproducts were noted for their superior quality and wearability in extremeclimates. The company enjoyed tremendous growth as its products gainedmarket share in a very competitive marketplace. Over time the productsbecame commodities with price point pressures that eroded their profita-bility. The profit loss led to tremendous pressure on the organization toeither totally outsource production or create a competitive advantage byrestructuring the organization to literally work 24/7 with the expectationthat increased output would reduce costs.

TexTech is typical of organizations in which the tensions and obstacles tocreating and integrating work-life initiatives are inherently found embeddedwithin the culture and structure. As in many traditional manufacturing en-vironments, TexTech was hierarchically structured, with different divisionsorganized into functional silos. There were inherent systemic problems as aresult of the stovepiping and the resulting competitive relationships amongthe divisions. Most of the production workforce was unionized and an ‘‘usvs. them’’ culture was reinforced over the years through collective bargain-ing efforts. The one exception to this adversarial culture was the high regardthe union leadership and members had for the CEO, who had demonstratedwith his actions over time that he truly had the best interests of TexTech’speople at heart. The union did not always feel the same way, however, aboutthe managers and supervisors.

The multicultural workforce consisted of many immigrants and first-generation Americans, who moved from state assistance once they joinedthe workforce. TexTech was the largest employer in a severely economically


disadvantaged area. Unlike the fast-food industries and other such employ-ment opportunities available in the area, TexTech, in great part due to thephilosophy of the CEO, provided employees with a living wage includingexcellent medical and other benefits. Many employees worked at TexTechfor decades, and had risen through the ranks to become supervisors andmiddle managers.

TexTech at the time was a third-generation family-owned business. TheCEO deeply believed that workers were the company’s most valuable in-tangible asset. He always had an open-door policy toward employees, andwas regularly visible to them. He often knew their spouses, children andfamily members, whom he readily hired. The CEO also acted on his abidingbelief in corporate social responsibility to the community in which Tex-Tech was located. The company’s foundation supported many acti-vities, and TexTech actively participated in the area’s social and economicdevelopment.

The CEO was a natural champion of the work-life initiative to develop anon-site early childhood education center, while the culture and structuremitigated against any change occurring. Mindy G. began her work with thecompany by helping the CEO understand that in order for the work-lifeinitiative to be successful, human resources could not implement it alone.Both union and management had to be jointly charged with designing andimplementing the initiative. The work–family team members began to weavean informal collaborative network of union leadership, management andpotential providers within the neighboring community. The strategic inter-vention involved creating a methodology that could work ‘‘under the radarscreen’’ within the existing structure and culture.

The methodology of assessing, aligning and measuring results provided acontainment structure for gradually moving forward despite the usual twinconstraints of limited time and resources. Both union and management wereinvolved in the process of assessing employee need within the organizationand assessing the availability of community resources. Both union andmanagement were given feedback so that the course of action they ulti-mately decided on – to engage community resources rather build a facilityon-site – was aligned. The intent was for the work–family team to imple-ment, monitor and measure the impact on people and the organization.

Through the collaborative engagement process involved in the assess-ment, union leadership grew to appreciate management’s interest in re-sponding to employees’ work-life issues. Management better understood thedepth of the work-life struggles of employees after they reviewed the resultsof many focus groups and the hundreds of surveys that employees


completed. Members of this work-life initiative gradually developed trustamong themselves as they collaborated closely throughout the action re-search process. The union appreciated the team working with a diversegroup of community providers that understood their needs. This six-monthcollaboration became the foundation for future network weaving. The con-cepts of working under the radar screen, involving union and management,working collaboratively and creating a process to assess, align and measurehad been successfully seeded.

The CEO was interested in moving forward, and was seriously consideringhow to implement these work-life initiatives, engaging community providersand including subsidies for families. Then, as is often the case in organiza-tional life, an unpredictable event happens that eliminated the possibility ofrapid change. In this case, an accidental fire broke out that disrupted pro-duction and wiped out $500K in profits, money that could have been used toaddress the child care needs of workers. The plans literally went up in smoke.

Several months later, management proposed to turn the company into a24/7 rather than five-days-plus-overtime shop in order to remain compet-itive in the marketplace, and avoid the outsourcing of jobs. The immediateresponse from union members was resistance and a great deal of tension.Union members feared losing their seniority, their overtime pay and mostcritically, they worried about the potential negative impact this restructuringwould have on their work and personal lives. As a result, talk of a unionstrike made for a very tense situation.

Mindy G. drew upon the trust and social capital she had gradually earnedwith union leaders, management and human resources leadership. Thougheveryone had been disappointed that the child care initiative did not ma-terialize after a great deal of effort, the strong relationship bonds remained.Building on those relationships, Mindy G. continued to work under theradar screen. Together with union and management, they developed a stra-tegic organizational intervention process using the three-phase process toassess, align and measure results that ultimately resulted in a positive busi-ness impact for the company and the improvement of the work life ofemployees.

It is essential that OD practitioners work with leaders to understand theimplications of change for all key stakeholders, and get them engaged inhonest dialogue and joint action. Representing the perspective of the work-ers, Mindy G. expressed concern to the CEO that a shift to a 24/7 operationwould negatively affect workers’ already fragile child care arrangements ofemployees. Having conducted focus groups with workers on different shifts,and have spoken to many union workers and leaders during the child care


initiative process, she knew there were many financially-challenged families,including recent immigrants, who relied on both parents working at thecompany rather than depend on public assistance.

As researchers, we know that when both parents in a two-parent familywork at the same workplace, they often arrange their schedules to meet theirchild care needs. Clearly, a 24/7 schedule can potentially aggravate an al-ready stretched situation. Mindy F. found that very few companies investedin resolving the challenges of shift work in the manufacturing industry in astudy she did on child care for shift workers.

At TexTech, senior management argued that it was better to change thework structure than downsize the company to stay competitive. Their pro-posed plan involved researching some shift work designs, choosing the onebest for production and implementing it within three months. In conver-sations with Mindy G., the CEO privately expressed concern about thepotential impact on workers. He reluctantly agreed to her suggestion to justtalk with a premier shift work consulting company that happened to beheadquartered locally.

Senior leaders had resisted bringing in outside expertise, as they wereconfident of devising a profitable 24/7 shift work structure without the delayin implementation and the expense (the twin resistance of time and moneyagain). Many of the senior leaders believed that developing the new organ-izational design was a business decision for which they alone had the ex-pertise. There was no need in their mind to involve production workers oroutside experts. Resistance was understandable given the pressured eco-nomic environment and need to move with speed in response to the mar-ketplace. Senior managers did not think there was sufficient time for aprocess that could delay the speed of implementation needed to be produc-tive during the busy season. Senior leaders were also convinced the work-force would simply acquiesce since they had few choices for employment.

The CEO was willing to consider engaging outside experts who leveragedthe latest research on the best shift work schedules for the family and per-sonal lives of people and the company. The shift work consultants sup-ported Mindy G.’s strategy of an engagement process that involved allemployees. The CEO did not try to overcome the resistance of the seniormanagement team by telling them what to do. Instead he removed thebarriers by having the consultants come in for a half-day seminar. Duringthat process, the shift work consultants helped senior leaders understandthat creating an engagement process involving employees was a soundbusiness decision about ‘‘doing the thing right’’ in addition to it being the‘‘right thing to do.’’


The shift work consultants had deep experience in manufacturing envi-ronments, strong academic credentials and had conducted extensive re-search that underpinned their work. Bringing in the shift work consultingexpertise strengthened the claim that the roadmap to successfully restruc-turing the company involved engaging employees in selecting and imple-menting the best shift work structure that would affect their work andpersonal lives for many years.

The consulting firm broadened the senior management’s team perspectiveregarding how to design and implement a successful 24/7 shift work organ-izational structure. They learned how devastating some shift work designswere on people’s personal lives and ultimately on their productivity. Theylearned how many companies ultimately failed in their implementation ef-forts to achieve the results they had expected because they did not take thetime up front to engage people in the process. At the end of the half day, eventhe most reluctant senior leader agreed on the need to involve employees.

An informal collaborative network was created among the shift workconsultants, management, human resources and union leadership to choosethe optimal 24/7 shift work structure. Resistance decreased as the moresenior managers learned about the nature of 24/7 shift work structures, andhow creating a process that involved the people would ensure sustainabilityand profitability for the long term. The shift work consultants worked withsenior management for several weeks to identify three good shift workstructures, and worked with Mindy G. to craft a process whereby unionmembership would vote and choose the final structure. In honoring people’sfamily and personal lives, the CEO augmented this process by chargingMindy G. and human resources to help every employee who needed supportthrough the transition. Ultimately, the 24/7 schedule was implemented withsupport from all the stakeholders in the company, but not without tension,resistance and bumps along the road.

Analysis: What Were Major Success Factors in Building the 24/7

Organization?

In reviewing the strategic advantage of OD interventions, we suggest first,that a thought partner external to the organization, in collaboration withstakeholders, could guide the organization, influencing and positively har-nessing resistance from executives and union members. Second, we suggestcreating an engagement process to assess, align and measure, which involvesdifferent levels of the organization including union and management. The


following phases are an attempt to categorize the process to make the les-sons learned transferable to other organizational situations.

Phase One: The Discovery and Assessment Process. Employees Chose the

Best Organizational Design for Work-Life Integration, with the

Management’s Support of This Inclusive Process

The process began with an assessment and consultation workshop with thesenior management team conducted by the shift work consultants andMindy G. and continued for several weeks. The CEO of the global shift workcompany described the extensive research conducted and case studies ofnumerous companies converted into 24/7 operations. Many of the examplescame from the book he had recently written on designing optimum shift workorganizations. Senior managers in turn educated the consultants on the busi-ness needs and constraints in creating a 24/7 organization from their businessperspective. The next step involved union leadership to assure that they toounderstood the importance of choosing a shift work structure that was a goodfit for both the company and the people. During this assessment phase, union,management and the shift work experts put their heads together to identifythe shift work design most suited for the company and the culture.

While there were many shift work designs to choose from, senior man-agement settled on three that also took into account the work-life integra-tion of employees. The union leadership learned about the pros and cons ofeach of the shift work designs, and further vetted them. They actively par-ticipated in the process of explaining to their members the pros and cons ofeach of the choices. Union leaders created the structure and process bywhich union members voted for the shift work design to be implemented.During this time Mindy G. became a certified shift work consultant, bring-ing the expertise in training for a shift work lifestyle within TexTech.

The shift work schedule that was chosen reflected two critical criteria ofimportance to production workers. First and foremost on people’s mindswere their child care arrangements. Many were dual-income workers, bothemployed at the company.

There were husbands and wives who both worked at the company, whoafter the shift ended would literally hand over their children to their spouseduring the cab ride home. The shared child care strategy was important inhelping families do without public state assistance. Families were able tomanage with child care provided by the spouse or extended family membersmore easily than before. In addition, the health benefits provided by the


company made this manufacturing job much more economically viable thanfast-food restaurants or other places that hired unskilled labor.

The second critical factor was that many of the trades people and pro-duction workers had cottage businesses during their off shift times. Main-tenance and production workers, for example, had side businesses involvingcarpentry, construction or electrical work. The same was true for otherskilled laborers who hired themselves out during their off times and seasonaldowntime. It is how they ‘‘level loaded’’ their income when they were tem-porarily laid off, or added to their income to buy a home or put theirchildren through college. One person reported that having the free daysoff inspired him to start his own small business. Employees having two jobsactually spurred some concern that people would burn the candles at bothends, resulting in less work–family integration. Employees did not expressthis concern. We learned that many employees had supplemented their in-comes with weekend work in the previous system anyway. The three-day,thirty-six hour workweek ultimately chosen was experienced as expandingtheir capacity for choice and ability to advance in the world and worth thetrade-off in time. Now they could do some supplemental work during theweek rather than use all their weekend time.

The majority of production workers ultimately voted for a shift workschedule in which they worked 36 hours in three days. The schedule chosengave them the most flexibility regarding child care and providing time foradditional income. At the same time, this meant that the union employeeswith the greatest seniority who were already on the day shift would benefitthe most.

Once managers and supervisors understood that a productive process wasin place for people to actively choose their shift work schedule, they werevery supportive in making sure that the information got to productionworkers. The CEO of TexTech with other managers, and sometimes MindyG., met with every group of production workers to explain the business casefor restructuring, discuss the shift work options and let people know that thecompany would help individuals negatively impacted by the change. It wasessential that production workers be well-informed before they had to vote.Many questions were fielded during this time. The CEO discovered thatmost people understood the need for the change. Their primary concern washow the change would affect their personal and work lives. Employees val-ued being part of the process for choosing from among three family-friendlyshift work designs.

The CEO listened to people and recognized that there were workers whomay be negatively impacted and needed help to successfully make the


transition. Mindy G. and the VP of human resources created another infor-mal collaborative network, the first official joint union–management com-mittee, comprised of managers, supervisors and union members or stewards.

The Social Hardship Committee (as the union folks informally called it)consisted of several of the same committee members who had participated inthe child care initiative just months before. The union members were allStewards, which meant that they had responsibility and access to productionworkers in the different plants. The stewards were chosen by the union onthe basis of their relationships with production workers, and activity inunion leadership. The stewards had the trust of both the workers and theunion leadership, which gave credibility to the group.

Since the supervisors (management) and some of the stewards had infor-mally participated in the child care initiative process, they were known toeach other, which in turn helped create the rapid formation of the group. Inaddition to credibility with the union, there was a powerful mandate frommanagement. The CEO chartered the working group to proactively resolveevery negative consequence to work-life integration that arose during theimplementation of the structural shift changes. The VP of manufacturingsponsored the team and gave the managers and supervisors the autonomyand decision-making authority to quickly implement changes in job place-ment. The CEO’s strong stance, and senior management’s willingness to letthe group function without interference, contributed to the group’s ability toquickly identify and implement staffing changes.

Phase Two: Joint Union/Management Collaboration and Challenges

During Design and Implementation (Aligning People and Systems)

Many of the challenges that had surfaced and were resolved in the informalcross-border collaborative network developed during the child care initiative,were useful in helping the joint union–management collaboration to evolvemore smoothly. During the child care initiative, union leadership and pro-duction workers expressed an interesting dichotomy in their view of thecompany’s leadership. From their perspective, the CEO held dear the value oftreating production workers with great dignity, giving them working wageand benefits. The CEO’s grandfather had immigrated to America and heunderstood what it meant for many of the workers to leave their native landsand try to build new lives in America with only minimum skills and Englishas their second language. The CEO had a good relationship with unionleadership. Senior and middle management however, were viewed with sus-picion by the union leadership. Production workers were even somewhat


skeptical of the proposed child care initiative, since they had never been askedbefore by management about their work-life integration concerns.

As managers, supervisors and union members had worked together on thechild care initiative, they experienced management in a different way. Super-visors were more in touch with how much sacrifice and difficulty peoplefaced in their day-to-day work and family lives. Workers began to see theirsupervisors beyond being their bosses. Production workers began to viewsupervisors as people who were also interested in integrating their own workand family lives. One of the challenges was the concern union members hadof not having equal voting power with management. Initially the unioninsisted on having the same number of workers as management members onthe Social Hardship Committee to create parity in case of a vote. Equalmembership and participation were gladly given. Only very gradually didunion members begin to trust that the group culture of collaboration andpartnership could really function.

Although the informal name of the group was the Social HardshipCommittee, specific steps were taken to develop the capacity for trust, respectand accountability that are part of a high-performance team. Accepting theunion’s resistance regarding preferential treatment for nonsenior union mem-bers, the Committee removed the barrier by designing an engagement processwith ‘‘procedural justice’’ at its core. Supervisors and production workersdeveloped process and procedures that were transparent to all and easilyunderstood to be fair and just in terms of who got ‘‘preferential treatment,’’regarding job placement. Having a just process and procedure helped removesome of the barriers to developing trust and effectively implement a policy forjobs placement that did not adhere to traditional union rules.

The team developed an engagement process which initially involved hav-ing supervisors audit and assess the potential work-life integration difficul-ties posed by the new shift work schedule. Mindy G. and other SocialHardship Committee members, primarily union stewards, then augmentedthe process by ‘‘walking the floors.’’ Talking with people identified by super-visors as having difficulties, literally while they were at their machines, amore detailed picture of the hardships emerged. Walking the floors provideddirect access to workers, with some people who had not identified theirissues earlier, motioning to Committee members to speak with them. As aresult of the assessment, the committee created broad criteria for defining asocial hardship, ranging from child care or eldercare issues, to medical orhealth issues, to a host of special life circumstances. Every individual whoexpressed difficulty with the proposed shift changes met with the committee


and shared his or her concern with both union and management. Havingstewards in the group provided great reassurance, and often languagetranslation for workers for whom English was a second language.

Committee members worked side by side during the audit, design andimplementation of creative organizational strategies to resolve the hardshipsthat arose in implementing the new schedule. The union stewards had bothrespect and deep connections among the multicultural networks in the or-ganization. They also knew how to best reach out to people who neededhelp, but were too proud to ask for it. One of management’s worries aboutworking together with the union was that there may be some productionworkers who would take an opportunity to unfairly use the flexibility in thesystem at the expense of others. Supervisors were surprised to find that theunion stewards were quite clear and more adept than management when itcame to setting appropriate boundaries so that the flexibility granted bymanagement and the union was fairly optimized.

In return for management’s flexibility regarding resolving social hardshipissues, union leaders agreed to flexible implementation of job placement,allowing people with special work-life hardships to be accommodatedwhether or not they had the seniority. One of the concerns of managementwas that the shift work schedule chosen favored senior union members themost, which meant that newer or younger members who had young childrenand child care needs would more likely have greater negative consequences.The Social Hardship Committee became a means for the union to level theplaying field to assure that people who needed help the most received it. Forexample, the committee considered the special needs of single-parent house-holds, or families with special needs children who could not work thenightshift schedules over the weekends because of child care difficulties.The union members were creative when it came to solving difficult problemsregarding seniority and crossing machine classification lines and providingtraining to those that did not yet have the skills needed to work the ma-chinery in a job available on a better shift.

The union members won credibility from management as they becamegenuinely engaged in the process of creating jointly held criteria for the sit-uations considered a social hardship, and designing and implementing theinitiative. The traditional ‘‘us and them’’ culture gradually changed as the twogroups engaged in working toward a common goal. In very rare instanceswhere production workers tried to take unfair advantage of the flexibility inthe system, the union workers quickly weeded them out. Their rationalewas simple. They wanted to make sure that the people who really needed the


help got the appropriate slots. Committee members working together imple-mented the changes required to help every individual worker through thetransition.

The supervisors and managers continued learning how to work together,gaining each other’s respect and trust as they helped contain the chaos thatemerged from the turnover to a 24/7 operation. The ongoing involvementof union members, the ‘‘just’’ process design combined with great care toresolve issues during the implementation on a case-by-case situation basedon jointly held criteria between union and management, garnered theirrespect.

So what were the critical challenges and success factors? In some ways thiswas truly a unique organization in that the CEO had deep bonds and trustwith production workers and championed the effort. We could hypothesizethat a ‘‘perfect storm’’ of external economic pressures, CEO championshipand the speed that this initiative required created the conditions for this hot-house group to blossom, so the lessons learned are not transferable to otherchange initiatives.

On the other hand, there was a fair share of skepticism on both sides ofthe aisle that is relevant to many organizational change initiatives, that doesmake some of the following lessons learned about success factors transfer-able to other organizations:

�
Getting the right people in the group was a good start. � Getting the system to open itself up to change the rules was more difficult.Union and management had to experience the dialogue of collaborationas creating results.
�
As management recognized that a smooth transition would indeed occur,and that considering work-life integration indeed was a part of that suc-cess, their resistance lessened.
�
As union members gave credit to management for taking work-life in-tegration needs into consideration, they were more willing to considercreative solutions that unions have traditionally opposed.
�
The Social Hardship Committee gradually became the prototype or‘‘starter-dough’’ culture for creating a collaborative work system and or-ganizational renewal a year down the road.
Phase Three: Monitor and Measure Business Outcomes

Capitalizing on Tangible and Intangible Business and Work-Life Outcomes

In strategic organizational interventions such as the one just described,we want to measure or at least document the tangible and intangible


results. Following are some of the positive business and work-lifeoutcomes:

Business Outcomes

1.
First and foremost, the union, whose leaders had initially threatened tostrike, chose at the last moment not to strike, resulting in no work stop-page and no negative impact on productivity.
2.
Significantly, both from morale and financial perspectives, especially in amanufacturing environment, not even one union grievance was filedthroughout the process. Not having any union-generated grievances wasconsidered an important tangible metric of success.
3.
Employees experienced management as working together with them toimprove the quality of their work and personal lives. This contributed toloyalty and commitment among workers, while an intangible, neverthelessa positive impact on the bottom line (that proved critical in getting thecompany through the next business crisis, but that is a different story).
Work-Life Outcomes

1.
Though the comprehensive child care solutions proposed were never im-plemented, the company did take action that led to tangible results. In-formation and referral resources were made available through the humanresources department regarding community-based programs for childcare and after-school care.
2.
The company offered employees dependent care vouchers, and a specialhotline was set up for employees to discuss individual issues related to the24/7 schedule.
3.
Many employees chose to individually meet with Mindy G., and/or at-tend, sometimes with their spouse, and on company time, customized half-day workshops on proactive strategies for managing a shift work lifestyle.
4.
The new organizational structure that included compressed shift workschedules became quite popular with workers. This relieved the pressurefor child care services (on off days), and allowed for more time with fam-ilies and leisure pursuits. Some employees chose to take on outside con-tracting or other work they could not do before, augmenting their income.
Lessons Learned that May be Transferable to Other Work-Life Integration

Initiatives:

�
Seek to align the work-life initiative with achieving the business strategy. � Championship from top leadership is critical, especially when there isresistance in senior and middle management.


�
Engage all levels of management. The real success of the initiative hingeson the active engagement of middle management and supervisors togetherwith the union to bring the change into where people live. This is wherereal work-life integration occurs. Top management championing of poli-cies and initiatives is a good first step. Effective implementation, however,is tied to the engagement of management on the front lines, taking re-sponsibility for designing the initiative to integrate within and influencethe unique culture of the organization.
�
Design a structure and a process with which people could easily becomeengaged. The process of assessing, aligning and measuring provided a wayfor people to conceptually grasp what needed to be done and experience itas eminently ‘‘doable.’’
�
Creating a collaborative network of ongoing learning and action amonginternal and external resources, strengthening the internal change capabil-ities of the human resources system. Strategic coaching helped to build thecapacity of human resources, union and management to sustain the changes.
�
Most significantly, resistance was never pushed aside or ‘‘overcome.’’Resistance is honored as a normal part of the change process that is to bevalidated, explored and understood. Rather than drive against the resist-ance, we focused on removing constraints or obstacles.
What evolved, as we have described, was deeper, systemic and sustainableorganizational change, which benefited both the company and the people.These changes produced a positive, measurable impact on the business andpromoted work-life integration within the organizational strategy.

WEAVING WORK-LIFE INTEGRATION INTO 24/7

WORK-GROUP CULTURE

Roadmap for Individual Work Group and Expanding Elsewhere in the

Organization2

We could posit that the ability to integrate the value of work-life integrationinto the organizational culture as described above was the result at an op-portune moment in the history of the organization turning into a 24/7 op-eration. The learning could be to simply stay open and look to takeadvantage of such opportunities. At the same time, we could also hypothe-size that many organizations in the knowledge economy are not literally24/7 in terms of operating at a plant around the clock. They can be


considered, however, as figurative 24/7 cultures in which people are tetheredto their technology and customer relationship management around theclock. What then can be learned that is applicable to these types of organ-izations? What can be accomplished when there is not a fortuitous momentin sight that dovetails with the business strategy?

The organizational strategy we next describe is similar in concept toTexTech, but without requiring a ‘‘perfect storm’’ to occur. We focus on anorganizational intervention that a manager of work groups can accomplishif she or he chooses to build in work-life integration into his or her ownwork group (that is in their legitimate domain of authority) regardless ofwhat happens anywhere else in the organization. In our work with organ-izations, we often hear that managers have no control over what happensabove and around them, constraining their ability to integrate work-lifeconsiderations into the culture of their work group. We suggest an antidoteto ‘‘we can’t make it happen in our organization,’’ including roadmapsmanagers can follow to build collaborative communities that at their coreare able to achieve the business strategy and the integration of work and life.Instead of a case study for illustration, we use the organizational researchconducted by Gewirtz, Gumpert, and Goodrich (2002) and Fried (1998) todevelop and illustrate this organizational strategy.

In addition to responding to a business crisis, as in the above example,OD strategies can be used to weave work-life integration within workgroups to build ‘‘life-friendly’’ workplaces and mitigate some of the negativeimpact of a 24/7 culture. Gewirtz et al. (2002) found in their study that menand women in technology and related fields experienced work-related stressas negatively impacting their lives. When asked what helps to mitigate theirstress, people said they turned to their family. Yet at the same time, nearly60 percent indicated that they did not have the time, emotional strength orenergy to pay attention to their life outside of work. Close to half said theydid not have time for friends, community activities or social dating, while 40percent reported a strain on their marriage or significant relationships.Factor analysis of the data indicated that working in a positive organiza-tional work environment did mitigate the stress experienced.

Even when companies have family-friendly policies, they are oftenunderutilized (Bailyn, 2006). In fact, subtle and sometimes not so subtlenonsupportive messages are communicated regarding the usability of work–family policies. Yet when employees do perceive that they can use existingpolicies, they have greater organizational commitment (Eaton, 2003).

In her ethnographic study in a financial services corporation, Fried (1998)found that a long-hours culture undermined utilization of the company’s


parental leave policy. Time was equated with productivity; taking time toparent was viewed as taking time away from the company. While a paidparental leave policy is needed and would create more equity in leave-takingbehavior of employees, organizational culture must be addressed as well, tochallenge the time-laden norms of the workplace.

Based on what we have learned in our research, we propose an ODintervention to build a positive organizational culture or ‘‘life-friendly’’culture. We define a ‘‘positive organizational culture’’ in functional terms, asa collaborative work community or network in which people work togetherto achieve business results and sustain work-life integration. This approachcan take place at any fundamental work-group level, so not requiring anyother part of the organization to change. This focused strategy is effectivewhen leaders believe they can change what happens in their group, but donot have the influence to create change elsewhere in the organization.

Choreographing the change to develop the collaborative work communityat this level requires a three-step process: (1) audit/assess, (2) design/imple-ment and (3) align/measure.

Step One: Audit/Assess

Benchmark the organization’s work environment on the factors below, asreported by respondents in the 2002 survey to help mitigate stress. Designquestions based on the organization’s culture to provide feedback fromemployees in order to rate these characteristics. Use the scale of 1–4(1 – strong; 2 – some; 3 – little; and 4 – none) to identify and prioritize thoseareas needing improvement.

Characteristic
Your Company’sRating
Satisfaction in accomplishments, with peoplefeeling they have a positive impact

Consistent opportunities to learn and grow
Skilled coworkers who are willing to help oneanother
Autonomy and independence: Being able to makedecisions about your work

Teamwork throughout, and collaboration andintegration across organizational boundaries


Environment that values and promotes creativityand innovation: e.g., safety to expressunconventional perspectives, take moderate risks

Open communication and shared planning

Assistance with capacity to manage uncertainty

A capable infrastructure, and the support systemneeded to do the work

Recognition and reward for good work

Competent, experienced leaders whocommunicate, motivate and mentor

Assistance and support to people in becomingable to manage unrealistic expectations anddeadline pressure

Sufficient internal calm to manage externalturbulence and change

Management acknowledges employees’ needs tointegrate/balance their work and nonworkresponsibilities

Management/supervisors support employeeutilization of work-life policies and programs (viadependent care support, flexibility, leave policies)and integration of work life

Step Two: Design and Implement a Collaborative and Integrated

Work-Life Community (Align Within and Across Work Groups)

Implement in an individual group or partner with other leaders. Use theaudit results to design a collaborative work community that fits the organ-ization’s culture and meets the following objectives:

�
Establishes open, mutually supportive work relationships to bufferagainst stress and promote work-life integration.
�
Develops trust, mutual respect, competence, integrity and openness torequests for help. It takes a collaborative community to help one anotherintegrate work life.


�
Thinks of itself as a network connecting to other networks. Shares andintegrates knowledge and communication among collaborative commu-nities and across organizational boundaries.
�
Helps employees manage customer expectations and hold one anotheraccountable for business excellence in order to strengthen service andbuffer stress from demanding customers.
�
Encourages employees to commit to creating realistic temporal structuresfor getting work accomplished and helps one another sustain sensiblework-life integration.
�
Embeds an underlying DNA of ‘‘dynamic stability,’’ i.e., a culture inwhich internal stability infuses the workplace environment, allowing peo-ple to more easily adapt to constant external change.
The ability to expand the collaborative community to other parts of theorganization depends on the ‘‘readiness’’ of leadership to champion thechange. As suggested by Porath et al. (1999), consider the following organ-izational strategies to spread the initiative to other parts of the organization:

1.
Appoint leaders from critical parts of the organization to form a cross-boundary collaborative community council. This council could championthe design and implementation of collaborative work communities.Charter the team by clarifying its mission, operating principles, goals andprovide for early-stage bumps in the road and changed circumstances.Create metrics to assess progress.
2.
Design work systems to facilitate the horizontal and vertical flow of in-formation, and foster both integration and collaboration within the teamand/or across organizational boundaries. Apply this concept with clientpartnerships, alliance partners, acquisitions and vendors.
3.
Coach leaders at all levels, especially at the top, to model collaborationwithin and across organizational boundaries. Help them to recognizehow their behavior affects others, to manage their own stress and tosupport people, as they navigate work-life difficulties.
Step Three: Align Performance Management and Measurement

To sustain collaborative communities and organizations, align performance

management and measurement processes with strategic goals. For example:

�
Develop performance management processes and metrics that supportcollaboration, and hold both customer impact and work-life integrationas core values.


�
Integrate positive organizational characteristics into the organization’svision, strategies and operations.
�
Align support systems and redesign work structures to maximize bothbusiness performance and work-life integration.
�
Tie performance management to succession planning, and build leader-ship capability and accountability to support collaborative work-life in-tegrative communities and other central goals.
�
Promote management of customer expectations, workload forecastingand leveling, cross-training and integration of contractors.
�
Develop initiatives to systemically reduce gender-related obstacles and topromote cross-cultural competency within and among communities.
�
Expand collaborative work communities to engage customers, out-sourcing partners and vendors.
�
Consider sustaining the collaborative communities especially during thecultural integration process in a merger or acquisition.
Systematically measure the outcomes of collaborative work communities.Assess financial results and customer value as well as internal processes thatenable the collaborative community and enhance business objectives. Con-nect the benefits of collaborative work-life integrated communities to boththe individuals and the organization by measuring progress in enhancing thevalue of human and organizational capital. The competitive edge is in cre-ating and valuating positive organizational environments as a true intangibleasset. Positive organizational environments and collaborative communitiesimprove the company’s competitive edge. Extend the value outward andbuild sustainable partnerships with customers, alliance partners and impor-tant vendors.

The Business Impact

We suggest that the business case for work-life integration at the work groupor network level has evolved from being the ‘‘the right thing to do’’ tobecoming an integral part of ‘‘profitable’’ organizational and business models.The positive business outcome is highlighted by Ulrich and Smallwood(2004). ‘‘Everyone knows that in the modern corporation intangible assets arethe source of greatest value. The skills and esprit of individuals and groups;the strategies, methods, processes, ideas and intellectual property that arethe harvest of their thinking; the bonds of culture, experience, trust and evenlove among employees, suppliers and customers – these separate winningcompanies from lagging companies.’’


In addition, recent research on corporate social responsibility providesevidence that how companies treat their employees is linked to profitability,‘‘as nearly one in two Americans believe the most important proof of cor-porate social responsibility is treating employees welly 76 percent believethat a company’s treatment of its employees plays a big role in consumerpurchasing decisions,’’ (National Consumer League, 2006). Building col-laborative work-life integrative communities can create the conditions underwhich people can promote work-life integration.

PROPOSED ROADMAP FOR WEAVING WORK-LIFE

INTEGRATION INTO THE CULTURAL CAPABILITY

OF A 24/7 ORGANIZATION

The first example of a system-wide organizational intervention in a globalmanufacturing company described above is perhaps an opportune responseto a business crisis. The second example describes a roadmap of a plannedrather than an opportunistic effort for integrating work life at the work-group level that could possibly expand to the rest of the organization. Incontradistinction to the other two interventions, the third example belowproposes a radical roadmap for network weaving of work-life integration ina planned, system-wide cultural change initiative.

The value proposition suggests that human resources proactively trans-form itself into a strategic business partner, and/or champion initiatives tocreate a new culture for the company. During this process, human resourcesseizes the opportunity to reach beyond monitoring compliance of family-friendly work policies and begin to weave work-life integration into thecultural DNA.

Some organizations, as the case with TexTech, are ready or capable oftransforming their cultures when a particular business crisis demands it.Other times, as in the second example, it may be easier to find specific work-group leaders to champion work-life integration within their own team.Fewer organizations, perhaps those whose successful customer relationshipmanagement strategies are directly linked to their people, may be willing toconsider a more comprehensive human resource culture change initiative.

There may be compelling motivation for a CEO or team leader to cham-pion work-life integration. What is the benefit, however, to a human re-source organization seeking its own transformation into a strategic businesspartner, to include work-life integration? Why would work-life integration


be considered part of culture capability building as human resources trans-forms itself ?

Given today’s business realities, human resources is at a critical crossroadin terms of articulating its value proposition inside organizations. Externalcompetitive pressures to reduce costs have resulted in many of the trans-actional functions of human resources being handed over to a combinationof web-based solutions, pooled centers of excellence or outsourcing.

At the same time, there are exciting new opportunities for human re-sources to provide value upstream by becoming strategic business partnersrather than transactional administrators. We propose that human resourceleaders transform themselves into strategic business partners who designand sustain organizational cultures that are aligned to execute the businessstrategy. Weaving work-life integration into the culture of the organizationcan be a powerful means to achieving the business strategy as it is a com-pelling motivator in recruiting and retaining the best talent. Getting ‘‘theright people on the bus’’ is the first step to creating a great company thatlasts the test of time (Collins, 2001).

The results in the national study, Generation and Gender in the Work-place, Families and Work Institute (2004), indicate that the expectations ofthe Generation X and Generation Y are qualitatively different than those ofthe baby-boomer generation. This difference in expectations (Haserot 2004),has significant implications for talent acquisition and retention, and thekind of work cultures in which Generation X and Y will thrive.

According to the study results, 50 percent of Generation Y and 52 percentof Generation X consider themselves family centric or dual centric ratherthan work centric. Most likely to be considered work centric as a generationare baby boomers who feel they often put their jobs before their family. Incontrast, Generation X and Y as a generation are more likely to feel thatthey often put their family before their job – ‘‘family centric,’’ or they try toregularly shift priorities in a way that preserves both work and family –‘‘dual centric.’’ As a result, work life integrated cultures can be an importantcompetitive advantage, suggests Haserot (2004), in recruiting youngerworkers.

In addition, the results indicate a decline of 16 percent for college-educated men and 21 percent for women who want to accept advancement.Their reason is that the work responsibilities that come with advancementrequire trade-offs they do not want to make. Between boomers exiting thework arena, and younger people not wanting to make the sacrifices theirparents did, ‘‘their father’s workplace’’ will need to be redesigned to create asystem where it will no longer be acceptable to say that individuals have to


do all the adapting. Human resources is well positioned to transform itselfand the culture of organizations to allow the newer generations of workersto thrive on them.

The roadmap we propose for integrating work-life initiatives into thelarger cultural-change effort can be a particularly good fit for those humanresource organizations seriously engaged in shifting their culture fromtransactional to transformational performance management. The shift en-tails moving the human resources culture from one that functions as aservice provider to its employees, to a strategic business partner, focused onbuilding organizational cultures that promote the business strategy and theintegration of work life. We suggest that creating the organizational cultureneeded to accomplish the business strategy and support employee work-lifeintegration can be a powerful new role for human resources to breatheinvigorating life into existing work-life policies that have not yet been in-tegrated into the culture of the organization.

This strategic organizational intervention that we propose weaves work-life integration beyond the fundamental group level to create change withinthe entire organization. Work-life practitioners may want to consider di-rectly linking their efforts with the current trend to shift the human resourcevalue proposition from the transactional to transformational performance.OD strategies can be used as a means to bring alive the framework describedby Ulrich & Brockbank (2005) for human resources to shift from a trans-actional to a ‘‘culture-capability-based human resources strategy.’’

Ulrich and Brockbank (2005) suggest in their framework that the first stepin the transformational process is for human resources to better understandthe impact of external realities – from globalization to demographic, reg-ulatory and technology influences that affect the business strategy. The nextstep is for human resources to become knowledgeable about the needs ofinternal and external stakeholders – from employees, to customers to sup-pliers and vendors. Only then, can human resources begin to identify theinterdependencies and culture necessary to effectively accomplish the busi-ness strategy. What follows is a proposal to develop human resource prac-tice, policies and processes that support the new culture.

We take a leap forward in augmenting the Ulrich and Brockbank (2005)culture-capability-based model to include work-life integration as an inte-gral component of the organization’s cultural capability. We suggest thathuman resource practices, policies and processes that get developed in sup-port of the new culture also include the supports for work-life integration.

The following skeletal guidelines for an organizational strategy thatbuilds work-life integration into the cultural-capability-based human


resources strategy are a good starting point for discussion. A word of cau-tion is in order. Every organization is different, and no one strategy fits all.Consider these guidelines for use in the organization as a conversationstarter in terms of how to create the best fit for the organization.

Organizational Strategy for Building a Cultural-Capability-Based Human

Resource Strategy

Phase One: Audit/Assess-Discovery Process

�
Senior leaders such as the COO or CEO are important champions of theprocess. They charter a Human Resources Strategy Council to develop acultural-capability-based human resources strategy complete with deliv-erables and timelines.
�
Council members can use the Ulrich and Brockbank (2005) framework, asa means to begin the conversation to effectively transform human re-sources. The task of the council is to develop an engagement process thatinvolves learning about both the external and internal business realitiesthat impact the organization. The process would include a means foridentifying the needs of internal and external stakeholders and then ex-trapolating what the culture capabilities need to look like. A key deliv-erable for the council would be to build human resource practices andprocesses that support the newly identified cultural capabilities.
�
One possible engagement strategy is to involve the whole system in aprocess that touches many members. The Human Resource StrategyCouncil comprised a cross section of human resources (or everyone, insmaller organizations) that would complete several days of preplanningand dedicate several intensive off-site meetings over a period of ninety days.
�
The intensive off-site meetings similar to the previous two organizationalinterventions would include an assessment, alignment of design and im-plementation as well as a measurement process. In the first phase, thediscovery or audit and assessment process, outside subject matter expertsare brought in to educate members about the various external realitiesthat impact the current and future state of the business, e.g., technologicaladvances, globalization, demographic or regulatory changes and eco-nomic indicators. In an alternative approach to bringing in subject matterexperts from different parts of the organization, council members couldlocate the experts, interview them and bring back the information to thelarger group.


�
In some organizations, in the second part of the discovery/assessmentprocess, internal business strategists participate in the off-site meeting andeducate members about the current and future business strategy of thecompany. An alternative approach (or some combination effort) is forcouncil members to interview key stakeholders in different divisions andshare the discovery with the larger group.
�
In the third part of the discovery/assessment process, members participatein the off-site meeting with mission-critical internal and external custom-ers of human resources and the organization. We suggest they meet sup-pliers and key members of the community to provide input into thecultural competencies needed to effectively execute business strategy inthat organization.
Phase Two: Design and Implement (Align People and Systems)

�
The strategy council prepares for a series of off-site meetings for whichmembers come prepared with their assignments and data gathered duringthe discovery phase. The action research process of engaging members infinding out who in the organization can help educate the group regardingbusiness strategy can itself become a useful intervention.
�
Relationships that develop when collaborating and communicating withdifferent parts of the organization can create the seeds for cross-organ-izational collaboration necessary for effectively implementing any recom-mendations.
�
Internal and external customers can be identified to participate in theprocess. They are brought together with human resource professionals inan intensive off-site meeting to grapple with the data either generatedbefore the meeting or at the meeting, and plan for recommendations tosenior leaders.
�
Senior leaders are kept in the loop throughout the process, to avoid sur-prises. They are primed on how to be available as a resource to the groupduring the off-site meetings. They also have to make clear any expecta-tions and results they need, in order to respond ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to rec-ommendations of the group either at the off-site meeting itself, or at adesignated time not too long after the off-site meeting. A ‘‘yes’’ on arecommendation requires some form of allocation of time and/or otherresources to actualize them. A ‘‘no’’ requires an explanation of what isrequired to change the ‘‘no’’ into a green light.
�
Internal and external customers who are interviewed about the business-related issues are also asked about the impact of work-life integration on


their own productivity and profitability. They are asked to identify thesystemic obstacles that constrain people from integrating work and familylife. They also identify the driving forces in positively weaving an inte-grated work life as a cultural capability within the organization.

�
The council and champions create a network of subgroups during the off-site meetings that identify the top priorities for cultural capability build-ing. They begin to outline the operating principles, and the success factorsand obstacles.
�
A roadmap for implementation is created at the off-site meeting thatincludes deliverables and timelines to hold everyone accountable.
Phase Three: Monitor, Measure and Build-In Knowledge Management

�
Senior leaders are prepared before the off-site meeting that they need to becommitted to sign-off on recommendations that emerge from the processwithin a ninety-day window.
�
Two or three measures are identified and tracked depending on criteriaestablished for accomplishing the business strategy, e.g., revenue gener-ation, recruitment or retention. The purpose is to measure the businessand work-life outcomes rather than measure activities accomplished.
�
A ‘‘lessons-learned’’ process is integrated within each phase (rather thanat the end) and shared throughout the process, to allow corrections to beimmediately implemented.
Four Guiding Principles That All Three Interventions Have in Common

1.
Take advantage of change in the external environment to create change inthe internal environment.
2.
Develop champions at the top, the middle and all levels wherever pos-sible.
3.
Customize a process for each organization that includes an audit/dis-covery/assessment phase; then a design and align; and finally measure,monitor and manage knowledge for future change.
4.
Consider resistance to be nature’s way of protecting us from too muchrapid change. Validate and honor the resistance. Lean into it and learnwhat is standing in the way. Allow the change to happen by removing thebarriers (Gewirtz & Gumpert, 2003).


Concluding Thoughts

Industry leaders who invest in creating positive organizational environmentsthat are also what we call ‘‘life-friendly,’’ capitalize on their intangible‘‘people’’ assets. This provides a competitive advantage not easily replicated.Just as customers choose partners and vendors based on ‘‘positive experi-ences and relationship’’ with products and companies, employees choose towork in and give their best to companies based on positive experiences ofwork environments that support an increasingly complex integration oftheir work and personal lives.

Fundamentally, those who want to create and sustain organizationalchange need to consider engaging an organization where there is alreadyinterest to explore these strategies, and a perceived potential to make animpact on the business strategy. They need to start within their locus ofcontrol and then influence outward in order to build on a group’s success.This process can be initiated by leaders within an organization who want toweave work-life integration into their organizational cultural capability-building efforts and create change at the larger organizational level.

Many companies have jumped on the work-life bandwagon, citing theprovision of policies and programs as proof of their commitment. We sug-gest that companies will elicit greater buy-in for organizational change whenthey solicit employees’ work-life integration needs as a driver for change,with the support of organizational strategy interventions. We argue that thisprocess of work-life integration is greatly enhanced through an OD strategythat is explicit in accomplishing the business strategy.

NOTES

1. Some of the material in this section are drawn from Fried and Gewirtz (2006).2. Some of the material in this section are drawn from Gewirtz (2004).

REFERENCES

Bailyn, L. (2006). Breaking the mold: Redesigning work for productive and satisfying lives. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Collins.

Eaton, S. (2003). Industrial Relations, 42(2), 145 doi: 10.1111/1468-232X.00285.

Families and Work Institute (2004). Generation and Gender in the Workplace. Sponsored by the

American Business Collaboration. New York.


Fried, M. (1998). Taking time: Parental leave policy and corporate culture. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press.

Fried, M., & Gewirtz, M. (2006). Network weaving, using organizational strategies for work-

life integration. Guest Column, Work and Family Connection Newsletter.

Gewirtz, M. L. (2004). People Power. IMIS (Institute for Management Information Systems)

Journal, November. United Kingdom.

Gewirtz, M. L., & Gumpert, P. (2003). Sustaining top leadership teams: The promise and the

pitfalls. In: M. Beryerlein (Ed.), Collaborative systems fieldbook. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass/Pfeifer.

Gewirtz, M. L., Gumpert, P., & Goodrich, J. (2002). Coping with the changing realities of work

and life. Brookline, MA: GLS Inc.

Haserot, P. (2004). Re-thinking priorities and impact on the workplace. In Newsletter: Inter-

Generational Relations e-Tip. NY.

Kamenetz, A. (2006). Generation debt. Riverhead Books.

National Consumer League News, online newsletter (May 2006). Article: National Consumers

League, Fleishman-Hillard Examine Public Attitudes and Perceptions of Corporate Social

Responsibility – Survey: American Consumers’ Definition of the Socially Responsible

Company Runs Counter to Established Belief.

Porath, M., Gewirtz, M., & Gumpert, P. (1999). Theory, implementation and the measurement

of critical success factors. In: M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Developing high-performance work

team. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Trunk, P. (2006). Crafting the New American dream. Globe article, June 11.

Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). Human resources: The value proposition. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2004). Spotlight: Intangible assets. Capitalizing on capabilities.

Harvard Business Review.

orgstrategieschapter2007

Documents