There's nothing worse than having some workaholic loser telling people that work-life-balance is a bad idea. But hear me out.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

Suppose a colleague of yours is having a miserable time working super long hours at work. It's hurting their home life. It's hurting their relationships.

We would all agree this person needs a better work-life-balance.

But what if that person is working the exact same long number of hours but they've never been happier?

What if they are working on something deeply meaningful? What if the positive energy they are getting at work follows them home, improving their home life and improving their relationships? Would we still recommend they reduce their work hours?

By definition, both the sad person and the happy person have terrible work-life-balance. They are both working the same super long hours.

But there's no way we would recommend that the happy person cut back the very thing that is bringing them joy so they can spend more time watching Netflix.

If you agree with this - and it's hard to disagree assuming your goal is to maximise happiness - then you agree that the concept of work-life-balance is flawed.

A better concept is 'work-life-harmony'. The problem with 'balance' is that it's like a seesaw. It assumes a 50-50 split or at least some kind consistency in how we allocate our time.

But we all know this is not how happiness works, and it's not how happiness works at work, either.

The concept of work-life-harmony recognises that you want your work life and your home life to be mutually reinforcing.

When I'm having fun at work, I'm a better, more positive and more interesting husband, son, brother, friend and neighbour.

It would be crazy to cut back on my work time if I'm having fun. If anything, I should be working more.

But the reverse is........

© Canberra Times