The Misplaced Responsibility of Work–Life Balance
In the early years of Amazon Inc., Jeff Bezos personally interviewed all potential employees, and if they “made the mistake of talking about a desire for a harmonious balance between work and home life,” Bezos rejected them. A Twitter exchange in 2017 between investors Blake Robbins and Keith Rabois ended with the latter prevailing by suggesting that technology moguls such as Elon Musk worked without interruption to achieve success: “Entrepreneurship requires total commitment”.
If this is indeed the case, should we have overlooked the fact that on January 6, 2025, Amit Banerji, co-founder of the startup Table Space, died of a heart attack at just 44 years old? Perhaps we only begin to feel a trace of revolt when we understand that other technology entrepreneurs have met similar fates, in some cases even through suicide: Rohan Mirchandani of Epigamia, Ambareesh Murty of Pepperfry, Aaron Swartz of Infogami, later acquired by Reddit - and the list (unfortunately) goes on.
In this context, excluding candidates who raise the topic of work-life balance during interviews, beyond reflecting a potentially toxic organizational culture, represents a wrongful and discriminatory practice. On the other hand, from the individual’s perspective, assuming that ensuring balance between professional and personal (private) life lies exclusively with the employer betrays a misunderstanding of one’s own responsibility. As we shall see, both attitudes are equally erroneous, though for different reasons, and their consequences can sometimes be tragic.
In argue that work-life balance is subjective and integrative, and nobody can impose their own level of balance on another person or group without violating their autonomy. My intention with this essay is corrective in nature with respect to the public discourse on work-life balance and the hope is that it contributes to a (more) constructive dialog moving forward.
The Status Quo
The idea of limiting working time is not new. In Private Government, Elizabeth Anderson points out that “the central struggle of British workers in the mid-nineteenth century was to set limits on the length of the working day—more so than to obtain higher wages”. The concept of “work–life balance” is generally considered to have emerged alongside the Women’s Liberation Movement in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. Although flexible working hours and maternity leave were initially used as incentives to encourage women’s participation in the labor market, the idea of balancing professional and personal life expanded toward the end of the twentieth century to encompass all professionals, regardless of gender.
The annual report of the recruitment company Randstad shows that in 2025, 83% of the 26,000 employees surveyed across 35 countries cited work-life balance as the most important factor in choosing a current or future job - tied with job security (83%) and slightly ahead of salary level (82%). At the same time, according to a study conducted by Remote.com, New Zealand confirms its position as the country with the best work–life balance in 2025 for the third consecutive year, ahead of Europe, which dominates the continental rankings with seven European countries in the top ten.
At the EU level, work–life balance for parents and carers establishes common minimum standards across member states for family leave and flexible work arrangements, including protections against discrimination and dismissal for workers who exercise these rights. In addition, a 2017 study shows that in nine countries (Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, and Sweden), burnout syndrome can be recognized as an occupational disease.
In the United States (ranked 59th out of 60 in Remote.com’s work-life balance index; 2025), many aspects related to working hours, breaks, and paid leave are regulated at the state level, since federal work-life balance legislation is far more limited under the Fair Labor Standards Act. There is no general limit on daily or weekly working hours, only rules regarding overtime pay beyond 40 hours per week. Meal or rest breaks are not mandatory, but when offered and lasting under 20 minutes, they must be paid. Unsurprisingly, in the American Psychological Association’s Work in America 2024 survey, one third of workers explicitly report lacking sufficient flexibility to balance their professional and personal lives, and over 40% say they work more hours per week than they would like.
We are thus presented with an array of practices regarding work-life balance, far from universal: from a socially recognized right supported by public policy, to informal negotiation that is often culturally or professionally penalized. And although these approaches reflect different perspectives on responsibility for work-life balance - whether as an institutional problem or a private one - workers, regardless of geographical context, tend to converge in their need for balance between professional and personal life.
Organization’s Error
Although Elizabeth Anderson acknowledges significant progress in working conditions, particularly compared to historical periods when slavery was widespread, modern workers nonetheless live in a state of “republican unfreedom”, meaning they are subject to the arbitrary will of others. Embracing the term explicitly, Anderson identifies the central figure of arbitrariness in labor relations:
“Surely many CEOs in the U.S. who consider themselves libertarians would be surprised to see themselves portrayed as dictators of little communist governments. Why don’t we recognize such an omnipresent part of our social landscape for what it is?”
This arbitrariness can take many forms and spills over into work-life balance, as illustrated by Jeff Bezos’s response during an all-hands meeting when asked whether Amazon would establish a better work–life balance:
“The reason we’re here is to make things. That is the top priority. That’s the DNA of Amazon. If you can’t excel and can’t put everything into it, then this may not be the right place for you.”
To dismiss a person simply for raising a topic to which one lacks a substantive response reveals an instrumental view of employees, as means rather than ends in themselves. Moreover, the assumption that someone interested in work-life balance is, by definition, professionally irresponsible and therefore underperforming lacks empirical support and instead reflects the unrealistic expectation that individuals be available to the company without limit, thereby violating personal boundaries.
Another argument advanced by critics of work-life balance is that if balance is so important to an individual, then they must lack passion for their professional activity, disqualifying them from success, which supposedly requires sacrifice. Though distinct, both arguments share a common bias: that individuals who prioritize work-life balance are unproductive.
Admitting that working from home falls under the umbrella of work-life balance, numerous studies, including Bloom, Han, and Liang (2022), show no substantial positive or negative effects of hybrid or remote work on productivity. This finding undermines the primary criticism of hybrid or remote work (a component of work-life balance) advanced by executives such as Elon Musk (Tesla, Twitter), Jamie Dimon (JP Morgan), and David Solomon (Goldman Sachs). When combined with studies showing positive correlations between job performance and work-life balance, the evidence offers a strong counterargument to the perception that those seeking flexibility and autonomy are less productive.
So why not promote such a balance as employer? Do we not want increased long-term individual satisfaction without harming productivity, maximizing well-being without productivity loss? Pragmatically speaking, stagnation in productivity is not an option for companies, and the prevailing belief is that maximizing surplus from professional activity requires sacrifices in personal well-being.
Yet framing the issue this way resembles the well-known anecdote in which, to make a delicious breakfast of eggs and ham, the chicken (the company) is involved, but the pig (the employee) is sacrificed. If we assume that resolving this imbalance requires a transfer of risk from one party to the other, we merely resort to measures drawn from the same logic that created the problem. Even calls for a fairer distribution of benefits fail to offer a lasting solution. Judged from the standpoint of sacrifice, compensation never seems enough; judged from the standpoint of compensation, sacrifice always seems insuficient. Any viable resolution, if there’s one, must transcend this dichotomy.
Individual’s Error
From the individual’s standpoint, the situation is more complex, because we must clarify both the multiple meanings of “work” and the actual issue of work–life balance responsibility.
Drawing on Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition, we distinguish between labor, work, and action. Arendt argues that modernity inverted the traditional hierarchy: instead of labor serving work (to build a world), and work serving action (to provide a stage for noble deeds), modern society has become a society of laborers and consumers. She warns that homo faber risks losing intrinsic meaning by turning everything into a means to another end, shifting meaning away from “immortality” (leaving a trace through action) and “durability” (creating a world through work), toward mere life maintenance and the biological “happiness” of the animal laborans.
Thus, for Arendt, to “work meaningfully” is to refuse reduction to the status of animal laborans, to assume responsibility for creating a durable common world (through work), and, more importantly, not in isolation, but alongside others, in plurality.
Where, then, should we seek meaning? If we accept that meaning belongs to one of life’s domains, the professional sphere may be a valid space for such a search. But, which of Arendt’s meanings should guide us? Or perhaps professional life becomes meaningful when evaluated through Robert Nozick’s criteria in Anarchy, State, and Utopia:
“(1) the opportunity to exercise one’s talents and capacities, to face challenges requiring independent initiative and self-direction (and thus not boring, repetitive work); (2) an activity regarded as worthwhile by those engaged in it; (3) an understanding of one’s role in achieving an overall goal; and (4) a structure such that decision-making sometimes requires consideration of the characteristics of the broader process in which one acts.”
Nozick’s phrasing (“achieving an overall goal”) implies a strongly materialist sense of meaning. In acknowledging this material dimension, I would add a nuance: prioritizing the depth of the field within which meaning is sought. As I interpret Nozick, meaning can be found; but if it can be found, is it not rather a goal? And once reached, do we seek another? That would be meaningless.
We may accept Nozick’s sense of meaning and conform to a succession of life plans, milestones we pass through. Or we may attempt a metaphysical supplement, akin to escaping Plato’s cave: a search for meaning not fixed in advance, but revealed at each step of the way, perhaps even accepting lower pay on the grounds that the work is intrinsically satisfying. We may arrive at the same “place” (not necessarily materially), but our starting posture matters for the journey ahead: in one case, the pursuit of material happiness; in the other, the reduction of spiritual suffering.
After this philosophical detour, where does the individual’s error regarding work–life balance lie? I believe it lies in failing to assume responsibility for the meaning of one’s work. Once this responsibility is consciously taken up, the sought-after balance emerges naturally from that meaning, not from arbitrary organizations or public policies that may or may not exist, or may satisfy to varying degrees. The question of a “balance point” between professional and personal spheres then loses its object.
What, ultimately, is the meaning of this work–life relationship? If oriented toward work, toward what meaning? If toward life, toward what meaning? Balance for balance’s sake? And how do we define balance anyway? Do we possess a measuring instrument, like a scale, that tells us with precision how many units of balance we have left, or when we become obese with life or malnourished by work?
Time spent in the 16 hours outside the standard 8-hour workday is called “life” only insofar as work itself is “death.” And if so, it is up to you to give meaning to this life-death oscillation. Once that meaning is found, the pendulum collapses, like a quantum function, not because one state disappears, but because the opposition itself ceases to exist. Only insofar as you have found a life’s work can you say that you are in balance.
At this point, we might be tempted to side with critics of work-life balance who accuse individuals of lacking passion for work. But passion is not a guarantee of long-term productivity, and meaning is not the same as passion. Passion is intensity marked by instability; without discipline, it lacks orientation and does not rise to the level of meaning. When individuals are both passionate and disciplined, they are productive precisely because they possess the maturity to manage their work–life integration.
So why do employers still avoid work-life balance discussions or disqualify candidates who initiate them?
Perhaps balance becomes more attainable when the search extends across one’s entire personal life, encompassing everything outside the professional sphere. Within this personal space, we may carve out a direction. I deliberately avoid the verb “to find” when speaking of meaning, because that implies a pre-existing target. Meaning, I believe, involves “optimistically and patiently searching for the unfound, rather than hastily finding what was never sought” (Pleșu, 2020, p. 141). If the end of searching were a fixed point, reaching it would dissolve meaning itself.
Meaning persists as long as we remain engaged in mapping an interval, perhaps dynamic, but one that contributes to the coherence of life, for ourselves or for others.
Assuming responsibility for this search of meaning, regardless of domain, entails discipline. This is where work–life balance “hides”, if we insist on using that term. Work-life balance thus belongs primarily to the subject’s responsibility, and the balance point or interval, however defined, cannot be imposed externally on another person or group.
If I understand R. J. Arneson correctly in Human Flourishing versus Desire Satisfaction, even if we accept an objective list of elements for a good life (including work-life balance), the balance ratio itself must remain subjective. The need for balance is objective, but the balance point varies even for the same person across contexts, because: (1) it has an intrinsic source - the individual; (2) the ratio between what must be balanced varies across individuals and contexts (not everyone requires 50/50); (3) the resulting productivity also varies with individual and context.
Reconciliation
As stated from the outset, my goal is not to offer a generic solution. Any solution appropriate in one context will be inadequate in another. Rather, I invite both sides to reflect on the narratives they adopt, narratives that fail to foster genuine dialogue and often remain trapped in blind spots. Revising the flawed work-life balance narratives discussed here requires acknowledging that:
a. Persistent organizational resistance to work-life balance suggests the problem is wrongly framed as a zero-sum game between productivity and well-being. Risk redistribution and sacrifice compensation remain insufficient because they preserve the same dichotomous logic.
b. Individuals’ externalization of responsibility, expecting organizations or public policy to solve work-life balance, is illusory. Balance is personal and results from the discipline with which individuals negotiate their professional and personal obligations.
c. Companies seek predictability; employees seek flexibility. Though seemingly incompatible, predictability requires companies to reduce arbitrariness, while flexibility requires individuals to assume responsibility for autonomy.
Minimizing organizational arbitrariness while individuals assume responsibility for integrating professional and personal life constitutes, in my view, a necessary condition for a work framework that respects autonomy without compromising collective performance. As Levitt and Dubner note in Think Like a Freak, adversarial “us versus them” frames define conflictual relationships and change requires reframing: from adversarial to cooperative.
I will not endorse a specific methodology, but I favor those that provide predictability in both directions, accompanied by decision transparency, that support sustainable performance, avoid conflating unlimited availability with professional responsibility, and integrate work-life balance directly into work organization.
I also advocate deliberately (though not obligatorily) introducing open work-life balance discussions into recruitment processes, as they can benefit both parties. A candidate’s ability to integrate professional and personal activities into a coherent life framework may serve as a necessary (though not sufficient) selection criterion, potentially yielding long-term benefits in ownership of performance.
Final Thoughts
Do we desire a life without work as an answer to work-life balance? We may receive it, at least some of us, as the AI waves are already underway. As we move toward a future where each person has an AI assistant with increasing autonomy, are we prepared to end work-life balance debates altogether? If work, understood as executing task sequences, is outsourced to AI agents, what do we make of our work?
As Arendt showed, work transforms and changes meaning. Work-life balance, formulated in twentieth-century terms, may acquire new meanings and shift toward other life spheres in a future where human involvement in labor diminishes.
I cannot claim I have a conclusion in the strict sense, beyond showing that work-life balance tensions cannot be resolved through organizational imperatives or passive individual expectations, because the problem is misframed as an opposition between productivity and well-being. Balance is not a fixed point (nor interval) imposed or measured externally, but a variable quantity dependent on the individual and his/her context, emerging from assumed meaning of work.