1.I guess I'll ask: Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

I know there are a few among the tech start-up crowd that vehemently feel that 40 hours a week is enough to be "it." The argument there is that the rejuvenation time-- the time spent bowling, skydiving, drinking-- is just as important to the work as the time with butt in chair, eyes focused on the screen.

I'd hate to think that we, as a society, are devoting more and more time to work, without actually getting more work done. Sadly though, I think that is what's happening. If we're not suffering on a production level, then we're definitely suffering on a creativity/innovation level.

2.I've never understood work-life balance, which might be because I have 8 children and a sales emphasis in every job I ever had. The kids don't need me on any particular schedule, and as my father told me, "the time to sell is when you have a buyer." Neither of those lend themselves to 9 to 5.

My kids know all about what I do for work, and they help me when they can and hinder me as little as possible. Similarly, if my clients can't deal with my needing to take a phone call from my wife during a meeting, then we're not going to do business.

I'm surely a long way from perfect at it, but I long ago decided that I didn't have a "business life" and a "personal life" and a "spiritual life" and a "professional life", what I had was a LIFE. One life. If I couldn't tell my pastor or my wife what I did for a living, or I couldn't walk out of my office to pick up my children or volunteer at the shelter, then I had a problem. Those things have to synch up and work together, or you're going to be in therapy a long time.

Great post.

3.I don't ever want to integrate work and life. The two are separate, for better or worse. Corporate America is so enamored with the employee that is willing to work 90 hours a week and only get paid for 40 and that's unfortunate. By favoring policies and staffing levels that require normal human beings to not only do the work of three individuals, but to be available to work every waking hour they are mortgaging their future for next quarter?s earning statement.

I think merging three positions into one and not monitoring, or caring, how many hours your employees work has the following impacts:

* Stunts your company?s creativity
* Decreases Quality
* Increases Burnout
* Promotes institutional knowledge loss

Creativity and Quality in this economy are critical to companies competing for the fewer consumer dollars out there today.

When companies increase burnout they increase the costs for the work that remains to be done, there are few backups in today?s Corporate America, and increase their HR costs by requiring more frequent recruiting efforts.

Documentation is great, and much needed in today?s business. However, there are bits of knowledge that cannot be documented. Experience and understanding of particular product abstract concepts are often poorly documented if at call. Every time someone burns out, that knowledge walks out the door.

Every family needs one person to be available to their children without warning and when it?s a choice between being there for your kids and being there for work at least one parent should be capable of that choice. In addition, I believe spending time with my children should not be a proximity issue. If I?m on the computer, on the phone, or texting in proximity of my child ? I?m not WITH my child.

4.When I first saw your tweet saying "work-life balance is dead," I couldn't believe what I was reading and couldn't imagine that Shel Israel was making that argument. But of course, then I get here and see the "work-life integration" angle, which is the comment I was prepared to make.

I absolutely agree that integration should be embraced for those jobs where it's viable, which is many of them. I think many companies support the philosophy but still call it work-life balance, which for many others means a clear distinction between work and life and no crossing of the line. Ultimately though, from a communications perspective and employee engagement philosophy, shouldn't the bottom line be the goal of getting the job done and empowering employees with the flexibility to do it? Some employees want a hard line at 5 p.m. and don't want to touch a Blackberry for work. For others, it means logging in from home at 6 a.m. so that you can make a soccer game at 3 p.m.

I also think Rex poses a good question on whether we're working more but accomplishing less. We have lots of technology available to streamline our work, but at the same time it can create added distraction and thus subtract from focused work. I think that, too, goes back to employee choice and empowering people to create the work environment where they perform best. While I'm known to check e-mail regularly from home, I'm not sure I would want an employer who demanded around-the-clock availability. So in my mind, the bigger question becomes how we balance employee needs and preferences with those of the employer with the shared goal of getting it all done.

Great post, Shel. Thanks for sparking this important discussion.

5.You hit the nail on the head here. I've written about the same sort of thing recently. I have no work/life balance because my job is what I love doing. My job IS my passion and it's who I am. How do you separate professional from personal when you are what you do?

http://www.mediacupcake.com/?p=224

6.The question of what part our jobs play in our lives is an interesting one.

I spent many years working as an engineer and I felt that I worked because I had to pay the rent and put food on the table. Period. However, that's not to say that I didn't find satisfaction and enjoyment in the work itself and in the camaraderie[?] of the workplace. But I suspect that the need to pay the bills is still the reason that most of us get up to go to work.

It was only later, when, as luck would have it, I was able to run my own small software company, that I felt my life and work were integrated. But I never expected our employees to feel the same way. They had their own lives and their own reasons for working.

The vast majority of corporate employers -- particularly in North America -- seem to feel no real responsibility for the welfare of their employees. It's obvious that their primary loyalty is to their shareholders. That's simply the way that the system works. Why the need to delude ourselves by pretending that there is anything else involved?

7.@Linda Shel Israel didn't make this argument. I did -- Shel Holtz. ;-)

By the way, there's a lot more discussion of this going on over on Facebook, where my blog posts are cross-posted:

http://www.facebook.com/shel.holtz?ref=profile

8.We are so on the same wavelength around this Shel!

I just posted last night on the topic of flexibility in the workplace for both women and men: http://thismommygig.org/2009/07/12/womenomics-a-bill-of-goods-or-new-world-order/

I totally agree that it's more of an integration than a balance between two sides of our lives that never meet. And, it is definitely becoming more than just a woman's issue.

One study noted in my post says that only 41 percent of employees in 2008 believe it is better the man to "earn the money" and the woman to "take care of the home and children."

Work/live integration is something we all crave!

9.My apologies for that, Shel. I really do have you two straight in my head, but that somehow didn't make it to my fingers while typing yesterday.

10.Shel, thanks for continuing the conversation.

Work life balance as a phrase is simply an access point to a conversation about what we value and what we want. Mostly our definitions are personal, and that's good. What balance looks like to me is going to be different from my neighbor.

Where the problem lies is when orgs and businesses operate with expressed or unexpressed expectations that to survive in the company and climb the ladder you have to give up your life. A cookie-cutter mentality about "how life is, period."

It's not words we're after, it's creating a life of value that benefits something bigger than ourselves. Most of us want to make some kind of contribution, and we're suffering because choosing well often seems like compromise. Or losing.

I coach a lot of women in creating balance in their (whole) lives, and it all comes down to what Jack was saying, making choices. Fine, fair enough.

The problem is that we're missing half the solution. Institutional change about the way we value human beings in the workplace. Very few of the women I've worked with have been inspired enough to create institutional change...not wanting to be perceived as a bitch or non team player. They're tired. Exhausted with the fight. They just want what they want, make the hard choices, and keep going.

Underneath it all what they say most is, "I can't make my boss value my children, or raising children, even though he wouldn't be the CEO if he didn't have a mother."

Bottom line, if there's no value for balance in the org, it's a good sign it's time to find something else.