#6 of 12
The Workplace is Built on the
Ideal Worker Standard.
It Shouldn't Be.
Much of the workplace has rooted its notions of success on the “ideal worker” archetype.
The standard first arose in the late eighteenth century as part of the industrial revolution and is widely seen as last relevant in the 1950’s.
Society has changed greatly since the 1950’s.
Ideal Worker Standard
The ideal worker standard defines successful employee behavior as one focused on the job from 9-5, uninterrupted, and in-person. The system was designed with the assumption that each worker would fully devote their attention to their job, with another person at home to manage all household, family, and community duties.
Families Have Changed
There has been a rise in single-parent and dual-income homes where employees must manage both work and family responsibilities. Most employees do not have an adult at home who manages family and community tasks during work hours.
Economy Has Changed
The economy with its high cost of living increases the pressure for all able adults in a household to work. Prices have risen for housing, food, childcare, education, and medical care without matching income increases. Most families are struggling to make ends meet. The ideal worker schedule does not work for our economy.
Technology Has Changed
Technology has erased many previous barriers of what can be accomplished outside the physical walls of work. Remote work, virtual meetings, paperless environments, and virtual gathering and networking opportunities have changed the definition of what is possible. The pandemic proved that flexibility is more possible than ever because of our existing technology.
The Definition of Workplace Success Must Change
Despite changes in our society, many employers consciously and unconsciously elevate the ideal worker construct. We should base success not on adherence to an outdated model, but a more inclusive standard that measures success based on outcomes.
Resources for the Ideal Worker Standard
1. (O’Connor & Cech, 2018). (Williams, 2006) (Cech & O’Connor, 2017) (O’Connor & Cech, 2018) (Bornstein et al., 2012) (Hirsch et al., 2020) 2. Bornstein, S., Williams, J. C., & Painter, G. R. (2012). Discrimination against Mothers Is the Strongest Form of Workplace Gender Discrimination: Lessons from US Caregiver Discrimination Law. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law & Industrial Relations, 28(1), 45–62. 3. Cech, E. A., & O’Connor, L. T. (2017). ‘Like second-hand smoke’: the toxic effect of workplace flexibility bias for workers’ health. Community, Work & Family, 20(5), 543–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2017.1371673 4. Hirsh, C. E., Treleaven, C., & Fuller, S. (2020). Caregivers, Gender, and the Law: An Analysis of Family Responsibility Discrimination Case Outcomes. Gender & Society, 34(5), 760–789. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243220946335 5. O’Connor, L. T., & Cech, E. A. (2018). Not Just a Mothers’ Problem: The Consequences of Perceived Workplace Flexibility Bias for All Workers. Sociological Perspectives, 61(5), 808–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121418768235 6. Williams, J. C. (2006). One sick child away from being fired: When 'opting out' is not an option. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2126303