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

The dramatic rise of women’s employment over the past few decades has
motivated private and public sector employers to develop ‘‘family-friendly’’
policies that are aimed at attracting and retaining female workers. Despite
the increase of women in high-level professions, many organizations have
cultures that do not support work-life integration. In fact, the culture of
most workplaces still equates long hours with loyalty and commitment,
which impedes the use of policies aimed at integrating work and personal
spheres.
Clients have been telling us for years that they would prefer working the
traditional workweek hours rather than the culturally accepted norm of
working many longer hours. Recently we have been hearing more similar
concerns from men (who had children) at least in the high-tech and pro-
fessional services. Results of the study, Generation and Gender in the
Workplace (Families and Work Institute, 2004) support anecdotal know-
ledge, as 80 percent of college-educated employees indicated a preference for
working 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 buying
into the baby-boomer definition of the American Dream that was realized at
the sacrifice of family and personal time. This necessitates removing cultural
barriers and building what we call ‘‘life-friendly’’ workplaces, where success
is equated with adding value and results rather than face-time. Removing
cultural 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 supports
work-life integration, requires a deliberate organizational development
(OD) intervention process. This process is aimed at both ensuring that there
are policies in place that support employees’ work-life integration, and deve-
loping organizational capability to support their use. We also take this
argument one step further and suggest powerful 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.
Organizational development strategies can drive the deeper cultural cap-
ability that work-life practitioners and policymakers are trying to achieve
MINDY L. GEWIRTZ AND MINDY FRIED498

in the workplace. Furthermore, OD practitioners, who partner with
senior leaders and become trusted advisors, are well positioned to weave
work life into the culture of the team or organization. We strongly believe
that organizational change within the work-life field requires the kind
of deep collaboration and culture change that emerges from OD interven-
tions. We propose that work-life practitioners, OD practitioners and
researchers 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 to
weave work-life integration into achieving the business strategy. Internal
networks are defined as collaborative work systems that exist (or are cre-
ated) inside organizations and linked together to achieve a common goal
neither could have achieved alone. The first example is a case study of a
strategic OD intervention in a global manufacturing company that actually
transitioned to a 24/7 operation. In this case, the strategic organization-wide
intervention evolved opportunistically as part of an integrated response to a
business crisis. This involved engaging two separate networks of union and
management to link together to create a new temporal structure inside the
organization that satisfied both business demands and work-life integration
for employees. Each network consisted of both formal and informal groups
that had to be engaged to make the transition a success. (Porath, Gewirtz, &
Gumpert, 1999).
The second organizational intervention suggests a roadmap managers can
use for weaving work-life integration into specific work groups regardless of
what happens elsewhere in the organization. This involves helping teams
understand that they are, in effect, mini-networks rather than just a group of
folks working together. As individual teams begin to consider themselves as
a network and part of a larger network, opportunities for thinking outside
the 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 systemically
weaves work-life integration into the larger human resources culture capa-
bility-building strategy for 24/7 organizations. This intervention also uses
the concept of linking internal networks to sustain work-life integration in
organizations that do not literally work around the clock as in manufac-
turing systems. Rather, these are organizations that are often tethered by
technology to working 24/7, as for example in high-tech, life sciences and
financial services.
Organizational Strategies for Network Weaving Work-Life 499

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 lessons
learned. Ultimately, overcoming many ‘‘bumps in the road,’’ the intervention
benefited hourly, supervisory and management human capital and resulted in
a positive, measurable business impact. This story begins like many do in the
business of work-life consulting. A $500 million global manufacturing com-
pany, which we call TexTech, and at the time employed 3,000 people, hired
Mindy 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. Their
products were noted for their superior quality and wearability in extreme
climates. The company enjoyed tremendous growth as its products gained
market share in a very competitive marketplace. Over time the products
became commodities with price point pressures that eroded their profita-
bility. The profit loss led to tremendous pressure on the organization to
either totally outsource production or create a competitive advantage by
restructuring the organization to literally work 24/7 with the expectation
that increased output would reduce costs.
TexTech is typical of organizations in which the tensions and obstacles to
creating and integrating work-life initiatives are inherently found embedded
within the culture and structure. As in many traditional manufacturing en-
vironments, TexTech was hierarchically structured, with different divisions
organized into functional silos. There were inherent systemic problems as a
result of the stovepiping and the resulting competitive relationships among
the divisions. Most of the production workforce was unionized and an ‘‘us
vs. them’’ culture was reinforced over the years through collective bargain-
ing efforts. The one exception to this adversarial culture was the high regard
the union leadership and members had for the CEO, who had demonstrated
with his actions over time that he truly had the best interests of TexTech’s
people at heart. The union did not always feel the same way, however, about
the managers and supervisors.
The multicultural workforce consisted of many immigrants and first-
generation Americans, who moved from state assistance once they joined
the 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 the
philosophy of the CEO, provided employees with a living wage including
excellent medical and other beneﬁts. Many employees worked at TexTech
for decades, and had risen through the ranks to become supervisors and
middle managers.
TexTech at the time was a third-generation family-owned business. The
CEO deeply believed that workers were the company’s most valuable in-
tangible asset. He always had an open-door policy toward employees, and
was regularly visible to them. He often knew their spouses, children and
family members, whom he readily hired. The CEO also acted on his abiding
belief 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 economic
development.
The CEO was a natural champion of the work-life initiative to develop an
on-site early childhood education center, while the culture and structure
mitigated against any change occurring. Mindy G. began her work with the
company by helping the CEO understand that in order for the work-life
initiative to be successful, human resources could not implement it alone.
Both union and management had to be jointly charged with designing and
implementing the initiative. The work–family team members began to weave
an informal collaborative network of union leadership, management and
potential providers within the neighboring community. The strategic inter-
vention involved creating a methodology that could work ‘‘under the radar
screen’’ within the existing structure and culture.
The methodology of assessing, aligning and measuring results provided a
containment structure for gradually moving forward despite the usual twin
constraints of limited time and resources. Both union and management were
involved in the process of assessing employee need within the organization
and assessing the availability of community resources. Both union and
management were given feedback so that the course of action they ulti-
mately decided on – to engage community resources rather build a facility
on-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 the
depth of the work-life struggles of employees after they reviewed the results
of many focus groups and the hundreds of surveys that employees

completed. Members of this work-life initiative gradually developed trust
among themselves as they collaborated closely throughout the action re-
search process. The union appreciated the team working with a diverse
group of community providers that understood their needs. This six-month
collaboration 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 measure
had been successfully seeded.
The CEO was interested in moving forward, and was seriously considering
how to implement these work-life initiatives, engaging community providers
and including subsidies for families. Then, as is often the case in organiza-
tional life, an unpredictable event happens that eliminated the possibility of
rapid 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 to
address the child care needs of workers. The plans literally went up in smoke.
Several months later, management proposed to turn the company into a
24/7 rather than ﬁve-days-plus-overtime shop in order to remain compet-
itive in the marketplace, and avoid the outsourcing of jobs. The immediate
response from union members was resistance and a great deal of tension.
Union members feared losing their seniority, their overtime pay and most
critically, they worried about the potential negative impact this restructuring
would have on their work and personal lives. As a result, talk of a union
strike made for a very tense situation.
Mindy G. drew upon the trust and social capital she had gradually earned
with union leaders, management and human resources leadership. Though
everyone 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 the
radar screen. Together with union and management, they developed a stra-
tegic organizational intervention process using the three-phase process to
assess, align and measure results that ultimately resulted in a positive busi-
ness impact for the company and the improvement of the work life of
employees.
It is essential that OD practitioners work with leaders to understand the
implications of change for all key stakeholders, and get them engaged in
honest 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 operation
would negatively affect workers’ already fragile child care arrangements of
employees. 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 the
company rather than depend on public assistance.
As researchers, we know that when both parents in a two-parent family
work at the same workplace, they often arrange their schedules to meet their
child care needs. Clearly, a 24/7 schedule can potentially aggravate an al-
ready stretched situation. Mindy F. found that very few companies invested
in resolving the challenges of shift work in the manufacturing industry in a
study she did on child care for shift workers.
At TexTech, senior management argued that it was better to change the
work structure than downsize the company to stay competitive. Their pro-
posed plan involved researching some shift work designs, choosing the one
best for production and implementing it within three months. In conver-
sations with Mindy G., the CEO privately expressed concern about the
potential impact on workers. He reluctantly agreed to her suggestion to just
talk with a premier shift work consulting company that happened to be
headquartered locally.
Senior leaders had resisted bringing in outside expertise, as they were
confident of devising a profitable 24/7 shift work structure without the delay
in implementation and the expense (the twin resistance of time and money
again). 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 or
outside 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 a
process 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 leveraged
the 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 all
employees. The CEO did not try to overcome the resistance of the senior
management team by telling them what to do. Instead he removed the
barriers by having the consultants come in for a half-day seminar. During
that process, the shift work consultants helped senior leaders understand
that creating an engagement process involving employees was a sound
business 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 consulting
expertise 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 and
personal lives for many years.
The consulting firm broadened the senior management’s team perspective
regarding how to design and implement a successful 24/7 shift work organ-
izational structure. They learned how devastating some shift work designs
were on people’s personal lives and ultimately on their productivity. They
learned how many companies ultimately failed in their implementation ef-
forts to achieve the results they had expected because they did not take the
time up front to engage people in the process. At the end of the half day, even
the most reluctant senior leader agreed on the need to involve employees.
An informal collaborative network was created among the shift work
consultants, management, human resources and union leadership to choose
the optimal 24/7 shift work structure. Resistance decreased as the more
senior managers learned about the nature of 24/7 shift work structures, and
how creating a process that involved the people would ensure sustainability
and profitability for the long term. The shift work consultants worked with
senior management for several weeks to identify three good shift work
structures, and worked with Mindy G. to craft a process whereby union
membership would vote and choose the final structure. In honoring people’s
family and personal lives, the CEO augmented this process by charging
Mindy G. and human resources to help every employee who needed support
through the transition. Ultimately, the 24/7 schedule was implemented with
support 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 with
stakeholders, could guide the organization, influencing and positively har-
nessing resistance from executives and union members. Second, we suggest
creating an engagement process to assess, align and measure, which involves
different 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 the
senior management team conducted by the shift work consultants and
Mindy G. and continued for several weeks. The CEO of the global shift work
company described the extensive research conducted and case studies of
numerous companies converted into 24/7 operations. Many of the examples
came from the book he had recently written on designing optimum shift work
organizations. Senior managers in turn educated the consultants on the busi-
ness needs and constraints in creating a 24/7 organization from their business
perspective. The next step involved union leadership to assure that they too
understood the importance of choosing a shift work structure that was a good
fit for both the company and the people. During this assessment phase, union,
management and the shift work experts put their heads together to identify
the 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 of
each 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 of
each of the choices. Union leaders created the structure and process by
which 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 of
importance to production workers. First and foremost on people’s minds
were their child care arrangements. Many were dual-income workers, both
employed at the company.
There were husbands and wives who both worked at the company, who
after the shift ended would literally hand over their children to their spouse
during the cab ride home. The shared child care strategy was important in
helping families do without public state assistance. Families were able to
manage with child care provided by the spouse or extended family members
more easily than before. In addition, the health benefits provided by the

company made this manufacturing job much more economically viable than
fast-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 involving
carpentry, construction or electrical work. The same was true for other
skilled laborers who hired themselves out during their off times and seasonal
downtime. 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 their
children through college. One person reported that having the free days
off inspired him to start his own small business. Employees having two jobs
actually spurred some concern that people would burn the candles at both
ends, resulting in less work–family integration. Employees did not express
this 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 expanding
their capacity for choice and ability to advance in the world and worth the
trade-off in time. Now they could do some supplemental work during the
week rather than use all their weekend time.
The majority of production workers ultimately voted for a shift work
schedule in which they worked 36 hours in three days. The schedule chosen
gave them the most flexibility regarding child care and providing time for
additional income. At the same time, this meant that the union employees
with the greatest seniority who were already on the day shift would benefit
the most.
Once managers and supervisors understood that a productive process was
in place for people to actively choose their shift work schedule, they were
very supportive in making sure that the information got to production
workers. The CEO of TexTech with other managers, and sometimes Mindy
G., met with every group of production workers to explain the business case
for restructuring, discuss the shift work options and let people know that the
company would help individuals negatively impacted by the change. It was
essential that production workers be well-informed before they had to vote.
Many questions were fielded during this time. The CEO discovered that
most people understood the need for the change. Their primary concern was
how the change would affect their personal and work lives. Employees val-
ued being part of the process for choosing from among three family-friendly
shift work designs.
The CEO listened to people and recognized that there were workers who
may 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 in
the child care initiative just months before. The union members were all
Stewards, which meant that they had responsibility and access to production
workers in the different plants. The stewards were chosen by the union on
the basis of their relationships with production workers, and activity in
union leadership. The stewards had the trust of both the workers and the
union 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 to
each other, which in turn helped create the rapid formation of the group. In
addition to credibility with the union, there was a powerful mandate from
management. The CEO chartered the working group to proactively resolve
every negative consequence to work-life integration that arose during the
implementation of the structural shift changes. The VP of manufacturing
sponsored the team and gave the managers and supervisors the autonomy
and decision-making authority to quickly implement changes in job place-
ment. The CEO’s strong stance, and senior management’s willingness to let
the group function without interference, contributed to the group’s ability to
quickly 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 informal
cross-border collaborative network developed during the child care initiative,
were useful in helping the joint union–management collaboration to evolve
more smoothly. During the child care initiative, union leadership and pro-
duction workers expressed an interesting dichotomy in their view of the
company’s leadership. From their perspective, the CEO held dear the value of
treating production workers with great dignity, giving them working wage
and benefits. The CEO’s grandfather had immigrated to America and he
understood what it meant for many of the workers to leave their native lands
and try to build new lives in America with only minimum skills and English
as their second language. The CEO had a good relationship with union
leadership. 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 asked
before by management about their work-life integration concerns.
As managers, supervisors and union members had worked together on the
child care initiative, they experienced management in a different way. Super-
visors were more in touch with how much sacrifice and difficulty people
faced in their day-to-day work and family lives. Workers began to see their
supervisors beyond being their bosses. Production workers began to view
supervisors as people who were also interested in integrating their own work
and family lives. One of the challenges was the concern union members had
of not having equal voting power with management. Initially the union
insisted on having the same number of workers as management members on
the Social Hardship Committee to create parity in case of a vote. Equal
membership and participation were gladly given. Only very gradually did
union members begin to trust that the group culture of collaboration and
partnership could really function.
Although the informal name of the group was the Social Hardship
Committee, specific steps were taken to develop the capacity for trust, respect
and accountability that are part of a high-performance team. Accepting the
union’s resistance regarding preferential treatment for nonsenior union mem-
bers, the Committee removed the barrier by designing an engagement process
with ‘‘procedural justice’’ at its core. Supervisors and production workers
developed process and procedures that were transparent to all and easily
understood to be fair and just in terms of who got ‘‘preferential treatment,’’
regarding job placement. Having a just process and procedure helped remove
some of the barriers to developing trust and effectively implement a policy for
jobs 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 Social
Hardship Committee members, primarily union stewards, then augmented
the process by ‘‘walking the floors.’’ Talking with people identified by super-
visors as having difficulties, literally while they were at their machines, a
more detailed picture of the hardships emerged. Walking the floors provided
direct access to workers, with some people who had not identified their
issues earlier, motioning to Committee members to speak with them. As a
result of the assessment, the committee created broad criteria for defining a
social hardship, ranging from child care or eldercare issues, to medical or
health issues, to a host of special life circumstances. Every individual who
expressed difficulty with the proposed shift changes met with the committee

and shared his or her concern with both union and management. Having
stewards in the group provided great reassurance, and often language
translation for workers for whom English was a second language.
Committee members worked side by side during the audit, design and
implementation of creative organizational strategies to resolve the hardships
that arose in implementing the new schedule. The union stewards had both
respect and deep connections among the multicultural networks in the or-
ganization. They also knew how to best reach out to people who needed
help, but were too proud to ask for it. One of management’s worries about
working together with the union was that there may be some production
workers who would take an opportunity to unfairly use the flexibility in the
system at the expense of others. Supervisors were surprised to find that the
union stewards were quite clear and more adept than management when it
came to setting appropriate boundaries so that the flexibility granted by
management and the union was fairly optimized.
In return for management’s flexibility regarding resolving social hardship
issues, union leaders agreed to flexible implementation of job placement,
allowing people with special work-life hardships to be accommodated
whether or not they had the seniority. One of the concerns of management
was that the shift work schedule chosen favored senior union members the
most, which meant that newer or younger members who had young children
and child care needs would more likely have greater negative consequences.
The Social Hardship Committee became a means for the union to level the
playing field to assure that people who needed help the most received it. For
example, the committee considered the special needs of single-parent house-
holds, or families with special needs children who could not work the
nightshift schedules over the weekends because of child care difficulties.
The union members were creative when it came to solving difficult problems
regarding seniority and crossing machine classification lines and providing
training 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 became
genuinely engaged in the process of creating jointly held criteria for the sit-
uations considered a social hardship, and designing and implementing the
initiative. The traditional ‘‘us and them’’ culture gradually changed as the two
groups engaged in working toward a common goal. In very rare instances
where production workers tried to take unfair advantage of the flexibility in
the system, the union workers quickly weeded them out. Their rationale
was 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 the
transition.
The supervisors and managers continued learning how to work together,
gaining each other’s respect and trust as they helped contain the chaos that
emerged from the turnover to a 24/7 operation. The ongoing involvement
of union members, the ‘‘just’’ process design combined with great care to
resolve issues during the implementation on a case-by-case situation based
on jointly held criteria between union and management, garnered their
respect.
So what were the critical challenges and success factors? In some ways this
was truly a unique organization in that the CEO had deep bonds and trust
with production workers and championed the effort. We could hypothesize
that a ‘‘perfect storm’’ of external economic pressures, CEO championship
and the speed that this initiative required created the conditions for this hot-
house group to blossom, so the lessons learned are not transferable to other
change initiatives.
On the other hand, there was a fair share of skepticism on both sides of
the aisle that is relevant to many organizational change initiatives, that does
make 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 collaboration
as 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 consider
creative 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-life
outcomes:
Business Outcomes
1. First and foremost, the union, whose leaders had initially threatened to
strike, 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 a
manufacturing environment, not even one union grievance was ﬁled
throughout the process. Not having any union-generated grievances was
considered an important tangible metric of success.
3. Employees experienced management as working together with them to
improve the quality of their work and personal lives. This contributed to
loyalty and commitment among workers, while an intangible, nevertheless
a positive impact on the bottom line (that proved critical in getting the
company 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 human
resources department regarding community-based programs for child
care and after-school care.
2. The company offered employees dependent care vouchers, and a special
hotline was set up for employees to discuss individual issues related to the
24/7 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 work
schedules became quite popular with workers. This relieved the pressure
for 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 is
resistance in senior and middle management.

Engage all levels of management. The real success of the initiative hinges
on the active engagement of middle management and supervisors together
with the union to bring the change into where people live. This is where
real 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 influence
the unique culture of the organization.
Design a structure and a process with which people could easily become
engaged. The process of assessing, aligning and measuring provided a way
for people to conceptually grasp what needed to be done and experience it
as eminently ‘‘doable.’’
Creating a collaborative network of ongoing learning and action among
internal and external resources, strengthening the internal change capabil-
ities of the human resources system. Strategic coaching helped to build the
capacity 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 be
validated, 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 sustainable
organizational change, which benefited both the company and the people.
These changes produced a positive, measurable impact on the business and
promoted 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 integration
into 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 take
advantage of such opportunities. At the same time, we could also hypothe-
size that many organizations in the knowledge economy are not literally
24/7 in terms of operating at a plant around the clock. They can be

considered, however, as figurative 24/7 cultures in which people are tethered
to their technology and customer relationship management around the
clock. What then can be learned that is applicable to these types of organ-
izations? What can be accomplished when there is not a fortuitous moment
in sight that dovetails with the business strategy?
The organizational strategy we next describe is similar in concept to
TexTech, but without requiring a ‘‘perfect storm’’ to occur. We focus on an
organizational intervention that a manager of work groups can accomplish
if she or he chooses to build in work-life integration into his or her own
work group (that is in their legitimate domain of authority) regardless of
what happens anywhere else in the organization. In our work with organ-
izations, we often hear that managers have no control over what happens
above and around them, constraining their ability to integrate work-life
considerations into the culture of their work group. We suggest an antidote
to ‘‘we can’t make it happen in our organization,’’ including roadmaps
managers can follow to build collaborative communities that at their core
are able to achieve the business strategy and the integration of work and life.
Instead of a case study for illustration, we use the organizational research
conducted by Gewirtz, Gumpert, and Goodrich (2002) and Fried (1998) to
develop 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 work
groups to build ‘‘life-friendly’’ workplaces and mitigate some of the negative
impact of a 24/7 culture. Gewirtz et al. (2002) found in their study that men
and women in technology and related fields experienced work-related stress
as negatively impacting their lives. When asked what helps to mitigate their
stress, people said they turned to their family. Yet at the same time, nearly
60 percent indicated that they did not have the time, emotional strength or
energy to pay attention to their life outside of work. Close to half said they
did not have time for friends, community activities or social dating, while 40
percent 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 often
underutilized (Bailyn, 2006). In fact, subtle and sometimes not so subtle
nonsupportive messages are communicated regarding the usability of work–
family policies. Yet when employees do perceive that they can use existing
policies, 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 to
parent was viewed as taking time away from the company. While a paid
parental leave policy is needed and would create more equity in leave-taking
behavior of employees, organizational culture must be addressed as well, to
challenge the time-laden norms of the workplace.
Based on what we have learned in our research, we propose an OD
intervention to build a positive organizational culture or ‘‘life-friendly’’
culture. We deﬁne a ‘‘positive organizational culture’’ in functional terms, as
a collaborative work community or network in which people work together
to achieve business results and sustain work-life integration. This approach
can take place at any fundamental work-group level, so not requiring any
other part of the organization to change. This focused strategy is effective
when leaders believe they can change what happens in their group, but do
not have the inﬂuence to create change elsewhere in the organization.
Choreographing the change to develop the collaborative work community
at 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, as
reported by respondents in the 2002 survey to help mitigate stress. Design
questions based on the organization’s culture to provide feedback from
employees 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 those
areas needing improvement.
Characteristic Your Company’s
Rating
Satisfaction in accomplishments, with people
feeling they have a positive impact
Consistent opportunities to learn and grow
Skilled coworkers who are willing to help one
another
Autonomy and independence: Being able to make
decisions about your work
Teamwork throughout, and collaboration and
integration across organizational boundaries

Environment that values and promotes creativity
and innovation: e.g., safety to express
unconventional perspectives, take moderate risks
Open communication and shared planning
Assistance with capacity to manage uncertainty
A capable infrastructure, and the support system
needed to do the work
Recognition and reward for good work
Competent, experienced leaders who
communicate, motivate and mentor
Assistance and support to people in becoming
able to manage unrealistic expectations and
deadline pressure
Sufficient internal calm to manage external
turbulence and change
Management acknowledges employees’ needs to
integrate/balance their work and nonwork
responsibilities
Management/supervisors support employee
utilization of work-life policies and programs (via
dependent 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 the
audit 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 buffer
against stress and promote work-life integration.
Develops trust, mutual respect, competence, integrity and openness to
requests for help. It takes a collaborative community to help one another
integrate work life.

Thinks of itself as a network connecting to other networks. Shares and
integrates knowledge and communication among collaborative commu-
nities and across organizational boundaries.
Helps employees manage customer expectations and hold one another
accountable for business excellence in order to strengthen service and
buffer stress from demanding customers.
Encourages employees to commit to creating realistic temporal structures
for getting work accomplished and helps one another sustain sensible
work-life integration.
Embeds an underlying DNA of ‘‘dynamic stability,’’ i.e., a culture in
which 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 the
organization depends on the ‘‘readiness’’ of leadership to champion the
change. 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 champion
the design and implementation of collaborative work communities.
Charter the team by clarifying its mission, operating principles, goals and
provide 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 team
and/or across organizational boundaries. Apply this concept with client
partnerships, alliance partners, acquisitions and vendors.
3. Coach leaders at all levels, especially at the top, to model collaboration
within and across organizational boundaries. Help them to recognize
how their behavior affects others, to manage their own stress and to
support 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 support
collaboration, and hold both customer impact and work-life integration
as core values.

Integrate positive organizational characteristics into the organization’s
vision, strategies and operations.
Align support systems and redesign work structures to maximize both
business 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 forecasting
and leveling, cross-training and integration of contractors.
Develop initiatives to systemically reduce gender-related obstacles and to
promote 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 the
cultural 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 that
enable the collaborative community and enhance business objectives. Con-
nect the beneﬁts of collaborative work-life integrated communities to both
the individuals and the organization by measuring progress in enhancing the
value of human and organizational capital. The competitive edge is in cre-
ating and valuating positive organizational environments as a true intangible
asset. Positive organizational environments and collaborative communities
improve the company’s competitive edge. Extend the value outward and
build 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 group
or network level has evolved from being the ‘‘the right thing to do’’ to
becoming 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 are
the source of greatest value. The skills and esprit of individuals and groups;
the strategies, methods, processes, ideas and intellectual property that are
the harvest of their thinking; the bonds of culture, experience, trust and even
love among employees, suppliers and customers – these separate winning
companies from lagging companies.’’

In addition, recent research on corporate social responsibility provides
evidence 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 believe
that a company’s treatment of its employees plays a big role in consumer
purchasing decisions,’’ (National Consumer League, 2006). Building col-
laborative work-life integrative communities can create the conditions under
which 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 global
manufacturing company described above is perhaps an opportune response
to a business crisis. The second example describes a roadmap of a planned
rather than an opportunistic effort for integrating work life at the work-
group level that could possibly expand to the rest of the organization. In
contradistinction to the other two interventions, the third example below
proposes a radical roadmap for network weaving of work-life integration in
a 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 to
create a new culture for the company. During this process, human resources
seizes the opportunity to reach beyond monitoring compliance of family-
friendly work policies and begin to weave work-life integration into the
cultural DNA.
Some organizations, as the case with TexTech, are ready or capable of
transforming 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 relationship
management strategies are directly linked to their people, may be willing to
consider 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 business
partner, 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 crossroad
in terms of articulating its value proposition inside organizations. External
competitive pressures to reduce costs have resulted in many of the trans-
actional functions of human resources being handed over to a combination
of 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 partners
rather than transactional administrators. We propose that human resource
leaders transform themselves into strategic business partners who design
and sustain organizational cultures that are aligned to execute the business
strategy. Weaving work-life integration into the culture of the organization
can be a powerful means to achieving the business strategy as it is a com-
pelling motivator in recruiting and retaining the best talent. Getting ‘‘the
right people on the bus’’ is the ﬁrst step to creating a great company that
lasts 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 of
the Generation X and Generation Y are qualitatively different than those of
the baby-boomer generation. This difference in expectations (Haserot 2004),
has significant implications for talent acquisition and retention, and the
kind of work cultures in which Generation X and Y will thrive.
According to the study results, 50 percent of Generation Y and 52 percent
of Generation X consider themselves family centric or dual centric rather
than work centric. Most likely to be considered work centric as a generation
are baby boomers who feel they often put their jobs before their family. In
contrast, Generation X and Y as a generation are more likely to feel that
they often put their family before their job – ‘‘family centric,’’ or they try to
regularly shift priorities in a way that preserves both work and family –
‘‘dual centric.’’ As a result, work life integrated cultures can be an important
competitive advantage, suggests Haserot (2004), in recruiting younger
workers.
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 advancement
require trade-offs they do not want to make. Between boomers exiting the
work arena, and younger people not wanting to make the sacriﬁces their
parents did, ‘‘their father’s workplace’’ will need to be redesigned to create a
system where it will no longer be acceptable to say that individuals have to

do all the adapting. Human resources is well positioned to transform itself
and the culture of organizations to allow the newer generations of workers
to thrive on them.
The roadmap we propose for integrating work-life initiatives into the
larger cultural-change effort can be a particularly good fit for those human
resource organizations seriously engaged in shifting their culture from
transactional to transformational performance management. The shift en-
tails moving the human resources culture from one that functions as a
service provider to its employees, to a strategic business partner, focused on
building organizational cultures that promote the business strategy and the
integration of work life. We suggest that creating the organizational culture
needed to accomplish the business strategy and support employee work-life
integration can be a powerful new role for human resources to breathe
invigorating 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 within
the entire organization. Work-life practitioners may want to consider di-
rectly linking their efforts with the current trend to shift the human resource
value proposition from the transactional to transformational performance.
OD strategies can be used as a means to bring alive the framework described
by 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 step
in the transformational process is for human resources to better understand
the impact of external realities – from globalization to demographic, reg-
ulatory and technology influences that affect the business strategy. The next
step is for human resources to become knowledgeable about the needs of
internal and external stakeholders – from employees, to customers to sup-
pliers and vendors. Only then, can human resources begin to identify the
interdependencies 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 that
human 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 that
builds 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 conversation
starter 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 the
process. They charter a Human Resources Strategy Council to develop a
cultural-capability-based human resources strategy complete with deliv-
erables and timelines.
Council members can use the Ulrich and Brockbank (2005) framework, as
a means to begin the conversation to effectively transform human re-
sources. The task of the council is to develop an engagement process that
involves learning about both the external and internal business realities
that impact the organization. The process would include a means for
identifying 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 and
processes that support the newly identified cultural capabilities.
One possible engagement strategy is to involve the whole system in a
process that touches many members. The Human Resource Strategy
Council comprised a cross section of human resources (or everyone, in
smaller organizations) that would complete several days of preplanning
and dedicate several intensive off-site meetings over a period of ninety days.
The intensive off-site meetings similar to the previous two organizational
interventions would include an assessment, alignment of design and im-
plementation as well as a measurement process. In the first phase, the
discovery or audit and assessment process, outside subject matter experts
are brought in to educate members about the various external realities
that impact the current and future state of the business, e.g., technological
advances, globalization, demographic or regulatory changes and eco-
nomic indicators. In an alternative approach to bringing in subject matter
experts from different parts of the organization, council members could
locate the experts, interview them and bring back the information to the
larger group.

In some organizations, in the second part of the discovery/assessment
process, internal business strategists participate in the off-site meeting and
educate members about the current and future business strategy of the
company. An alternative approach (or some combination effort) is for
council members to interview key stakeholders in different divisions and
share the discovery with the larger group.
In the third part of the discovery/assessment process, members participate
in 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 the
cultural competencies needed to effectively execute business strategy in
that organization.
Phase Two: Design and Implement (Align People and Systems)
The strategy council prepares for a series of off-site meetings for which
members come prepared with their assignments and data gathered during
the discovery phase. The action research process of engaging members in
ﬁnding out who in the organization can help educate the group regarding
business strategy can itself become a useful intervention.
Relationships that develop when collaborating and communicating with
different 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 the
process. They are brought together with human resource professionals in
an intensive off-site meeting to grapple with the data either generated
before the meeting or at the meeting, and plan for recommendations to
senior 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 group
during 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 a
designated time not too long after the off-site meeting. A ‘‘yes’’ on a
recommendation requires some form of allocation of time and/or other
resources to actualize them. A ‘‘no’’ requires an explanation of what is
required 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 the
systemic obstacles that constrain people from integrating work and family
life. 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 factors
and obstacles.
A roadmap for implementation is created at the off-site meeting that
includes 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 be
committed to sign-off on recommendations that emerge from the process
within a ninety-day window.
Two or three measures are identiﬁed and tracked depending on criteria
established for accomplishing the business strategy, e.g., revenue gener-
ation, recruitment or retention. The purpose is to measure the business
and work-life outcomes rather than measure activities accomplished.
A ‘‘lessons-learned’’ process is integrated within each phase (rather than
at the end) and shared throughout the process, to allow corrections to be
immediately implemented.
Four Guiding Principles That All Three Interventions Have in Common
1. Take advantage of change in the external environment to create change in
the 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 much
rapid change. Validate and honor the resistance. Lean into it and learn
what is standing in the way. Allow the change to happen by removing the
barriers (Gewirtz Gumpert, 2003).

Concluding Thoughts
Industry leaders who invest in creating positive organizational environments
that 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 to
work in and give their best to companies based on positive experiences of
work environments that support an increasingly complex integration of
their work and personal lives.
Fundamentally, those who want to create and sustain organizational
change need to consider engaging an organization where there is already
interest to explore these strategies, and a perceived potential to make an
impact on the business strategy. They need to start within their locus of
control 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 to
weave 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 the
provision of policies and programs as proof of their commitment. We sug-
gest that companies will elicit greater buy-in for organizational change when
they solicit employees’ work-life integration needs as a driver for change,
with the support of organizational strategy interventions. We argue that this
process of work-life integration is greatly enhanced through an OD strategy
that 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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to OrgStrategiesChapter2007

Similar to OrgStrategiesChapter2007 (20)

OrgStrategiesChapter2007