As you probably can tell, this is not a rhetoric question. However, it does seem as if today's industrial and institutional focus on work/life balance is not only part of our regular company mission statement - and an almost overused recruitment strategy - but the cornerstone of action towards achieving the elusive quality of life.

It is, I admit, a fairly simple and logical deal; you need some balance in your life between working and relaxing, in order for you to enjoy both. Who wants to eat ice cream all day long anyway? (well, maybe I do..but that's another story.) Somehow the ice cream will envitably loose its value down the line (and give you stomach problems too), and thereby its (life) "quality", so to speak.

So balance is good, check. Great. But is that all there really is to it? Don't we already have loads of people who work and have "free time" equally as much, and still do not feel that meaningful existence? This sounds like an industrial idea coming back in full force with the "8-hour rule" (8 hours work, 8 hours spare time and 8 hours rest; in that order).

According to the UN Human Development Index (HDI), national rankings of quality of life is determined by your life expectancy (health), educational attainment (social welfare, I suppose), and your "adjusted real income" (financial status), and so if work/life spells life quality, it shouldn't only cover the hours you put in, but more importantly, what you get out of them, financially, personally, intellectually, etc. Check today, which countries are considered qualitatively liveable at the moment:

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/mostlivable-leastlivable-coun... [1]

So, quality of life means getting the full value of each of our 24 hours. If this holds any bearing, then we are much closer to a major part of the B ideology: the flexibility factor. We currently rank institutions and companies as B, if they exercise flexibility in hours, activities and individual work preferences. Quality in life is thus not a question about how many hours you spend on work (or lack of it); it's through a flexible approach that you ensure that the hours are spent well, not only for our cognitive health, but also for our social and financial well-being. You want to be able to feel ready to pick up the kids, to feel fully focused when you produce that client report at work, and not forcing these feelings out, based on what your watch indicates instead of what your inner clock says.

So, let's return to the simple, logical outlook again: how do you spend your hours? Where? With whom? How flexibly can you shift unqualitative hours, to qualitative hours? What will it take to consistently uphold your quality of life, from a B-point of view?

sophie, editor