Contact:
Helen Paxton, Director of Communications
Rutgers Faculty of Management
201/648-5177 fax 648-1006
Email: [email protected]
KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES' WORK HOURS
THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT PEOPLE WORK IS DEFINITELY
INFLUENCED BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT OTHER WORKERS
WORK. WOMEN, HOWEVER, SEEM LESS INFLUENCED BY THIS
PEER PRESSURE THAN MEN DO, ACCORDING TO RUTGERS
PROFESSOR WAYNE EASTMAN.
Rutgers' Wayne Eastman began wondering recently whether
work hours are contagious. Does one worker put in longer hours if
other workers do? If so, is there a maximum beyond which people
won't follow? And do the same answers hold true for both men and
women?
Work hours have been studied quite a bit in the last few
years, no doubt because options like flex time, shared jobs, and
telecommuting have raised new questions. One conclusion emerging
from these studies is that the ratrace works against women's interests:
a man has freedom to work extra hard, they find, only because his wife
stays home extra long. Another conclusion is that Americans work
considerably more hours than their European and Asian counterparts.
But the question Prof. Eastman is asking is different. It's not
who or how many so much as why. Is it an awareness that the guy in
the next office is putting in extra time that makes an employee do the
same? It's what he calls "positional effect": because they're afraid of
falling behind in the scramble for prominence in the company, workers
put in longer hours -- or do they?
A prominent line of neoclassical economic theory holds that
people choose a desired income level and work to achieve it
regardless of what others do. "Positional effect" theory, on the other
hand, argues that people adjust their work habits because of others'
work habits.
To find out which is true, Prof. Eastman undertook a complex
experiment in which he questioned 104 people about their work-hour
preferences under various conditions. The details of the study method
are too intricate to be reported here, but the conclusions stand out
clearly.
A large majority of respondents indicated they would indeed
adjust their work hours according to how long others were working.
Only about 25% indicated they would work the same regardless of what
others did.
Of the majority, most indicated they would match or exceed
other people's hours at lower levels. However, when the number of
hours other people worked began passing 50, many began curtailing
their competitive instincts.
Specifically, if other people worked 30 hours, the average
respondent would work 41; if other people worked 40 hours, the
average respondent would work 46; but when the others' number rose
to 50, the respondents said they would put in only 50.5, and when the
others worked 60, the respondents went only as high as 54.7.
Moreover, women put up more resistance to the peer
pressure than men did. The difference wasn't great, but in general the
women pretty consistently said they would work two or three hours less
per week than the men said, in response to each number that other
people worked.
The reasons given were quite sensible. Most respondents
indicated they would feel funny working less than other people did, but
beyond 50 hours a week they cited family time and "other things in
life."
So the three clear conclusions of the study are these:
1. People's work hours definitely depend on how long other
people work -- the "positional effect."
2. As a result of the positional effect, people work
substantially more than the number of hours they would otherwise
choose to work.
3. The positional effect contributes to workplaces in which
standard managerial hours are further away from women's preferences
than from men's.
Apparently, neoclassical economic theory must move over a
little to make room for the Joneses!
WAYNE EASTMAN, an attorney turned management professor, teaches
courses in Managerial Law and the Legal Environment of Business and
pursues research in law and economics, employment law, and legal
theory.
RSS