Should You Try to Balance Family and Work?

By: Keaton Fletcher

One thing most working adults struggle with is balancing the demands of work and family. Oftentimes we find ourselves needing to be in two places at once, or thinking about work when we should be focusing on what our partner is saying, or treating our employees like our children. All of these experience of conflict carry with them negative outcomes (e.g., increased risk of cardiovascular disease, decreased job and life satisfaction). But, modern industrial-organizational psychologists have moved past exploring how the interface between work and family can be harmful, instead focusing on its benefits, or how it can be managed.

In a recent interview with Mathias Döpfner, the CEO of Axel SpringerJeff Bezos (founder of Amazon and Blue Origin) covered the history of Amazon and Jeff Bezos’s career. Interestingly, his story both started and finished with the importance of family. Bezos credits his parents, grandfather, and wife for his success. He shared a story of how his wife supported his career transition from stable investment banker to tech startup, highlighting the importance of that support. At the end of their discussion, however, Bezos said “This work-life harmony thing is what I try to teach young employees and actually senior executives at Amazon too. But especially the people coming in. I get asked about work-life balance all the time. And my view is, that’s a debilitating phrase because it implies there’s a strict trade-off. And the reality is, if I am happy at home, I come into the office with tremendous energy. And if I am happy at work, I come home with tremendous energy. It actually is a circle; it’s not a balance.” So what is the difference between balance and, as Bezos puts it, work-life harmony?

When looking at the positive side of the work-family interface, two distinct ideas arise: work-family balance and work-family facilitation. Work-family balance is a newer idea and has typically been defined as meeting the expectations in both work and family domains. Unlike the absence of work-family conflict, this perspective of work-family balance suggests that you are balanced to the degree that the primary stakeholders in both domains (e.g., your partner, children, coworkers, superiors) feel that you are meeting the expectations of that domain. You may still have conflict, but as long as you are meeting your expectations, which requires you to be actively engaged in both domains, then you are experiencing balance. What we see regarding balance, for example, is that when faced with multiple work-family conflicts, people will often switch role they choose to fulfill. So, if you have to leave work early to pick up a sick child from school, you may skip family dinner to complete a report on time. 

Work-family facilitation, on the other hand, looks at how your engagement in one role can help your engagement in the other. How does having a family help you be a better employee? How does having a work team help you be a better parent? Research suggests that, as Bezos points out, positive experiences in one domain tend to spill over into the other; so a good day at work often translates to a good evening with the family and vice versa. So, is Bezos right? Is it better to focus on facilitation rather than balance? Answer: both are important and intrinsically linked.

The Places People Go

Author: Cathy Liu

What is Geographical Mobility?

When considering whether someone will move locations for work, a phenomenon called geographic mobility, two demographic factors are traditionally important: college graduate status and employment status. Research on geographic mobility has focused on psychological factors such as personality, and economic factors such as tenure and economic standing, that affect an individual’s willingness to move. In current geographic mobility literature, there have been three major findings: (1) younger adults move more frequently than older adults, (2) college graduates are more likely to move than non-college graduates, and (3) those who are unemployed are more willing to move for work than those who are employed, regardless of age or sex.

Younger Adults Move More Frequently than Older Adults

As employees approach their late twenties, their willingness to relocate typically increases and reaches its peak (Schachter, 2004). Some have argued that this could be because individuals in this age range are still in the process of leaving home, getting married, starting their careers, and/or having children (Fischer, 2002). As age increases past the late twenties, unwillingness to relocate for work increases. Those in the 35 – 39 age group showed the highest rate of unwillingness to relocate. As age increased into the 40s, the desire to relocate closer to home and children increased which positively affected relocation for this cohort (Chapa & Wang, 2014). Although family and personal factors have a positive influence on relocation for older employees, older employees perceive their future career opportunities as less bright in comparison to those of younger employees which causes them to be less willing to relocate for work related purposes (Brett et al., 1993).

College Graduates are More Likely to Move than Non-College Graduates

From 2002 to 2003, 11 percent of those with a high school education moved for work, compared to 13 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree. Movers with a bachelor’s degree were more likely to move longer distances: 23 percent made an interstate move in comparison to 15 percent of those with a high school education (Schachter, 2004). From a sample of both in-state and out-of-state students from the University of Pittsburgh, 33 percent of students wanted to stay in Pittsburgh after graduation, while 35 percent wanted to move to a different state, and 5 percent wanted to move to a different country. Power motivation, the desire to obtain positions of authority, strongly predicted wanting to leave the state in search for better opportunities for work (Frieze et al., 2006). Those with higher education levels are better able to obtain more information and are better equipped to process the information which reduces search and transaction costs, thus lessening the burden when choosing to relocate.

Unemployment and Geographic Mobility Choices

In general, those who are unemployed are more likely to move than those who are employed (Schachter, 2004). Specifically, the migration rate is twice as high for unemployed people (10.9%) in comparison to employed people (5.7%; Saben, 1964). Further, unemployed individuals are more likely than employed individuals to migrate to an entirely new location, with no personal connections for work (Arntz, 2005). As the amount of search time increases, the probability of migration increases as well. Individuals who have the financial resources (e.g., unemployment insurance) to sustain them on a thorough job search for better opportunities and better fit with their interests and abilities may actually be more geographically mobile (Nunn et al., 2018). 

Remaining Research Questions

Although there has been extensive research regarding geographic and job mobility, there are still many questions that have not been answered. Little attention has been paid to the relationship between where individuals are willing to move to and their personal connections with each location. For example, is an out-of-state college graduate moving back to their hometown analogous to a high school graduate taking a job in a city where they have no personal connections? Both individuals are making moves, but can they be quantified as the same type of move?

There has been little focus on the psychological well-being of those who have moved from rural to urban areas even though urbanization has increased over the past century. On the other hand, many incentive programs exist to bring professionals to rural locations, and little work has been done to examine the psychological and health impacts of this type of move.

Lastly, in our modern society, it is important to study mobility in occupations where there has been a decline in jobs due to technological innovations that have rendered some professions obsolete. Is it that individuals are more willing to move because of job scarcity, or that they are less wiling to move because they do not see a long-term advantage to staying within the same occupation?

Importance of Understanding Geographic Mobility

The role of geographic mobility and job mobility is ever more important in our fast-paced, globalized society. For hiring managers, understanding who is (or is not) likely to accept a position outside of their current location is crucial to avoid wasted resources. For policy makers, it is important to understand the societal, technological, and economic changes that are influencing individuals’ job searches and migration patterns. For workers, it is critical to recognize the value and costs associated with geographic mobility, particularly as a function of age or as a result of job loss.

Job Mobility Takeaways
  1. An individual’s willingness to move is a result of both psychological and situational factors.
  2. Younger adults are more likely to move than older adults due to differences in life events and life stage.
  3. College graduates are more likely to move than non-college graduates due to access to more information and a stronger desire to obtain positions of authority.
  4. Those who are unemployed are far more likely to uproot and migrate to new locations without any personal connections.

Further Reading: 

Arntz, M. (2005). The Geographical Mobility of Unemployed Workers. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.732284

Brett, J. M., Stroh, L. K., & Reilly, A. H. (1993). Pulling up roots in the 1990s: Whos willing to relocate? Journal of Organizational Behavior,14(1), 49-60. doi:10.1002/job.4030140106

Borsch-Supan, A. (1990). The Double-edged Impact of Education on Mobility. Economics of Education Review,9(1). doi:10.3386/w2329

Chapa, O., & Wang, Y. J. (2014). Gender Role And Culture In Pre-Employment Relocation Decisions. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR),30(4), 1109. doi:10.19030/jabr.v30i4.8658

Fischer, C. S. (2002). Ever-More Rooted Americans. City and Community,1(2), 177-198. doi:10.1111/1540-6040.00016v

Frieze, I. H., Hansen, S. B., & Boneva, B. (2006). The migrant personality and college students’ plans for geographic mobility. Journal of Environmental Psychology,26(2), 170-177. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.05.001

Nunn, R., Kawano, L., & Klemens, B. (2018). Unemployment Insurance and Worker Mobility. Tax Policy Center. Retrieved March 24, 2018.

Ratcliffe, M. (2010). A Century of Delineating a Changing Landscape: The Census Bureau’s Urban and Rural Classification, 1910 to 2010(Rep.). U.S. Census Bureau.

Saben, S. (1964). Geographic Mobility and Employment Status, March 1962—March 1963. Monthly Labor Review,87(8), 873-881. Retrieved March 24, 2018.

Schachter, J. P. (2004, March). Geographical Mobility: 2002 to 2003. Current Population Reports.

Science Fiction in Work: New Technologies in the Workplace

By: Keaton Fletcher

In a recent article, CNN highlighted seven ways in which technological advances are potentially changing the way we work. For example, humans are generally pretty terrible at cybersecurity. Many companies have started to use biometric authentication (e.g., iris scanning, fingerprint scanning, or facial recognition) to provide workers access to computer terminals. Hospitals have also started using this technology to protect medications and patient files. Some companies, such as Three Square Market, have started optional programs that allow employees to have a microchip embedded under their skin that acts as their ID badge. 

Beyond simple technological innovations for cybersecurity, many companies are turning toward artificial intelligence (AI) to help workers perform better. In healthcare, for example, AI programs have been shown to complete a task that normally takes radiologists 45 minutes (determining blood flow and the volume of cardiac muscles) in a matter of seconds. But AI is not just limited to simple data processing. AI-CDß an AI robot used by McCann Worldgroup Japan, is used as a creative director for television ads. 

AI has also made its way into the world of pop music, changing the careers of songwriters in addition to the soundscape on the radio. In a recent podcast episode, musicologist Nate Sloan of Fordham University, and songwriter Charlie Harding, interview songwriter Taryn Southern about her use of AI in songwriting. Together they discussed the multitude of AI programs available as tools to assist songwriters (e.g., AivaFlow MachinesAmper, and Nsynth) including the benefits and drawbacks. In a musical Turing Test, Nate and Taryn listened to six pairs of song clips: one written entirely by a human and the other written with the help of AI. The differences were hard to hear, with AI-based music often slightly more complex than human-only music. Both Taryn and Nate found themselves stumped more than once. The hosts acknowledged that in its current form, AI music is either a good tool in a songwriter’s belt or is a replacement for songwriters who are only writing stock music. 

Another major area of technological advance is robotics. In a podcast episodePamela Gay, Director of Technology and Citizen Science for the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, and Fraser Cain, founder of The Universe Today and director of Cosmoquest, discussed the use of robots on the International Space Station. Specifically, they pointed out two semi-autonomous robots: Dextre and Robotonaut 2 (R2). Dextre is a large set of robotic arms that can either be controlled directly by astronauts or can run autonomously on pre-programmed tasks. It helps complete dangerous but relatively time-consuming and mundane repair activities on the outside of the space station. R2 is a humanoid robot that is being tested inside the ISS in its ability to take over routine, mundane tasks that require human-level dexterity. 

Certainly, technological advances are making leaps and bounds. As we navigate the coming changes in the workplace, it will be critical to understand how humans interact with technology, and how technology changes the experience of work itself.

Back to the Future: How Current Technological Changes Are Nothing New

By: Keaton Fletcher

In a recent podcast, Peter Grumble of Mckinsey Global Institute spoke with Susan Lund (a partner at McKinsey) and Richard Cooper, Maurits C. Boas Professor of International Economics at Harvard University, about the concerns regarding the changes advances in technology may bring about in the workforce. To answer this question, Lund and Cooper look backward toward other periods in history in which major technological advances greatly disrupted the workforce. Every time a new technology is developed, many existing jobs are destroyed, but more jobs, often many that were never needed or possible, are created. Lund and Cooper offer the creation and subsequent automation of development of the Ford Model T. As automobiles became more popular, the need for carriage makers and related services declined, but a host of new jobs both directly related to automobile production and maintenance (e.g., gas station attendants, car manufacturers, mechanics) and indirectly related (e.g., tourism) blossomed. Even as machine-based productivity of Model Ts increased the number of cars made from roughly eight cars per worker to about 21 cars per worker, Ford did not see a decreased workforce. In fact, as productivity increased, the price of the Model T decreased, which drove up demand for the Model T, ultimately leading to an increase in the workforce, despite the automation of much of the individual worker’s job. 

Looking at the advent of the personal computer, Lund and Cooper estimated that about 3.5 million jobs were lost because of the introduction of this technology into the workplace. However, about 19.3 million jobs were estimated to be made possible or necessary because of this new technology. The difficulty with viewing the current situation in this perspective, they argue, is that the loss of jobs feels tangible and is clear, with both statistical figures and emotional personal anecdotes to make this loss salient. The potential increase in jobs, however, is much more difficult to comprehend because many of these jobs do not exist in any form yet. 

What also makes this change particularly daunting is the need for new skills. Although technology can help reduce the barrier to entry for many jobs (e.g., barcode systems reducing the need for mental math to be an effective store clerk), it can also increase the need for unique and varied skills, many of which are related to technology. Lund and Cooper point toward estimates that roughly 375 million workers globally may need to entirely switch occupations, with even more needing to update their skill sets. This makes the rapid and effective training and re-training of middle-aged adults particularly necessary moving forward. Lund and Cooper point toward the U.S. Armed Forces as an example of successfully re-training individuals who, after a career in the Armed Forces, need to learn new skills to take on a new civilian occupation. 

In a separate podcast, Matthew Taylor (Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce) and James Manyika (chairman of the McKinsey Global Institute) discussed how to ensure people find meaning and are able to do “good work” in the modern economy. As Land and Cooper pointed out, the workweek has shortened from about 60 hours per week 125 years ago to roughly 37.5 hours per week today, along with paid vacations and holidays. Taylor points toward increases in autonomy and flexibility as methods of improving life quality, even as wages remain stagnant. Taylor suggests offloading non-rewarding work, the drudgery, onto machines and robots, freeing up humans to pursue meaningful work that gives them a sense of mastery and autonomy. 

Although many workers may be worried about losing their jobs or needing to be retrained and many others may be excited by the prospects of more meaningful work by way of the proper use of technology, Land and Cooper both warn that change will likely not happen overnight. Although technology is developing rapidly and change is coming, there is, thus far, no evidence that organizations are adopting new technology any faster than they did before.

Being Mindful About Mindfulness

Author: Jacqueline Jung

What is Mindfulness?

Mindfulness soared into popularity in the 2000s and has since become a topic of interest in nearly every domain of psychology, and an influential practice for a considerable subset of the public (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Mindfulness is generally defined as a state of heightened, intentional, non-judgmental awareness (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Three components of mindfulness—intention, attention, and attitude—have been identified, capturing the motivation, cognitive processes, and affective responses associated with mindful states (Shapiro et al., 2006). Although some studies examine mindfulness as a more trait-like construct (e.g., Siegling, 2014) this conceptualization has less value for researchers and practitioners interested in improving mindfulness skills.  As such, mindfulness is often measured as a mental state characterized by full attention to present-moment experience.

Correlates of Trait Mindfulness

Trait mindfulness, the relatively stable disposition to be more or less mindful, has been shown to help bolster the effects of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs; Shapiro et al., 2011). In the occupational domain, employer trait mindfulness has been linked to follower job satisfaction, job performance, and well-being (Reb et al., 2014). Trait mindfulness has also been associated with greater work-family balance (Allen & Kiburz, 2012), healthier eating, including fewer impulsive choices, healthier snack decisions, and reduced caloric consumption (Jordan et al, 2014). Trait mindfulness has also been shown as a weak, negative predictor of substance abuse behaviors, primarily alcohol and tobacco use (Karyadi et al., 2014).

Mindfulness-Based Interventions

Relatively large-scale attempts to manipulate mindfulness have been gaining traction in the applied domain. For example, mindfulness is employed in Google’s business practices, is a standard psychotherapy of the National Health Service in the U.K. and is being tested as part of the standard education for about 6,000 children aged 11 to 14 across seventy-six different schools in London (Kuyken, 2017). Mindfulness-based training is also being tested for U.S. military resilience; it has recently been used among U.S. Marines prior to deploying to Iraq in order to buffer against the stressors of military deployment (Stanley et al., 2011). A review of mindfulness-based interventions in occupational settings examined 153 published papers with 12,571 participants and found that mindfulness was generally associated with positive outcomes in measures of mental health, well-being, and job performance (Lomas et al., 2017). Sixty-four of these studies presented data from MBIs, of which the authors identified only 21 that provided high quality descriptions of their studies. In general, these studies supported the positive effects of MBIs on reported mindfulness and a range of outcomes such as anxiety, stress, anger, sleep, job satisfaction, resilience, and job performance. A qualitative review of workplace MBIs (Eby et al., in press) suggested the main outcome of interest in these studies tends to be effects on  stress/strain.

Areas for Improvement in Mindfulness Research

Despite the promise mindfulness holds, Van Dam and colleagues (2018) have recently suggested that methodological issues common to studies of mindfulness may lead the public to be disappointed or misled. First, the authors argued that because mindfulness is currently being used as an umbrella term to describe a large number of practices, processes, and characteristics focusing on attention, awareness, memory, and acceptance, there is no single agreed upon definition of the construct.  Similarly, Lomas and colleagues (2017), as well as Eby and colleagues (in press), also highlighted the variability in the content, delivery, evaluation, and reporting of mindfulness-based interventions. This may contribute to inconsistent results since some researchers may focus upon state or trait mindfulness while others examine mindfulness skills and practices. Van Dam and colleagues (2018) also point toward challenges to clinical interventions, such as haphazard variability across mindfulness-based interventions and misperceptions of therapeutic efficacy. They also draw attention to potential adverse effects from practicing mindfulness, including over twenty published cases of meditation-related psychosis, mania, depersonalization, anxiety, panic, and traumatic memory re-experiencing. Another thing to keep in mind is that exaggerated benefits of mindfulness may potentially divert patients from pursuing activities such as aerobic exercise or standard treatments (e.g. psychotherapy). Lastly, Van Dam and colleagues call into question interpretations of mindfulness data due to limitations in neuroimaging and problematic analyses of brain activity depictions.

It is not all bad news for mindfulness, though. In response to Van Dam and colleagues’ (2018) review, Davidson and Dahl (2018) suggested that Van Dam and colleagues’ primary focus on clinical outcomes (such as depression and addiction) may be missing critical, meaningful, and potentially more potent effects on non-clinical outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction, job satisfaction, motivation). Davidson and Dahl also suggest that much of the variability in mindfulness results may be due to variability in the duration and intensity of mindfulness practice, giving rise to many theoretical and practical questions. For example, is it more useful to practice meditation in brief but multiple sessions in a given day, or is it more beneficial to have one long session? Is daily practice more or less impactful than periods of intensive practice such as retreats? Davidson and Dahl also argue that mobile technology may enable the standardization and collection of large datasets on mindfulness interventions.

Five Mindfulness Takeaways
  1. Mindfulness has been viewed as a multidimensional trait, state, or skill set, depending on context.
  2. Generally, studies of mindfulness-based interventions in occupational settings show a range of positive impacts, especially on stress/strain.
  3. Because there is no standard definition, operationalizing mindfulness becomes difficult, which then leads to methodological issues and inconsistent results.
  4. Considering mindfulness-based interventions, there is no standard format, content, delivery, or reporting system. This may explain inconsistent results.
  5. Overall, more consistency in defining, manipulating, and evaluating mindfulness may help researchers and practitioners alike in understanding the relationship between mindfulness and outcomes of interest.

Further Reading: 

Allen, T. D., & Kiburz, K. M. (2012). Trait mindfulness and work-family balance among working parents: the mediating effects of vitality and sleep quality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 372–379.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology84, 822–848.

Davidson, R. J., & Dahl, C. (2018). Outstanding challenges in scientific research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science13, 62–65. 

Fresco, D. M., Moore, M. T., van Dulmen, M. H. M., Segal, Z. V., Ma, S. H., Teasdale, J. D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2007). Initial psychometric properties of the experiences questionnaire: Validation of a self-report measure of decenter-ing. Behavior Therapy38, 234–246.

Hugh-Jones, S., Rose, S., Koutsopoulou, G.Z. et al. Mindfulness (2017).

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156.

Karyadi, K. A., VanderVeen, J. D., Cyders, M. A. (2014). A meta-analysis of the relationship between trait mindfulness and substance use behaviors. Drug and Alcohol Dependence143, 1–10.

Kuyken, W., Nuthall, E., Byford, S., Crane, C., Dalgleish, T., Ford, T., … & Williams, J. M. G. (2017). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training programme in schools compared with normal school provision (MYRIAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials, 18, 194.

Lomas, T., Medina, J. C., Ivtzan, I., Rupprecht, S., Hart, R. Eiroa-Orosa, F. J. (2017). The impact of mindfulness on well-being and performance in the workplace: an inclusive systematic review of the empirical literature. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology26, 492–513.

Jordan, C. H., Wang, W., Donatoni, L., Meier, B. P. (2014). Mindful eating: trait and state mindfulness predict healthier eating behavior. Personality and Individual Differences68, 107–111.

Reb, J., Narayanan, J. Chaturvedi, S. Mindfulness (2014). 5: 36.

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of Mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 373–386.

Stanley, E. A., Schaldach, J. M., Kiyonaga, A., Jha, A. P. (2011). Mindfulness-based mind fitness training: a case study of a high-stress predeployment military cohort. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 18, 566–576.

Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., Meyer, D. E. (2018). Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science13, 36–61.

Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., Meyer, D. E. (2018). Reiterated concerns and further challenges for mindfulness and meditation research: A reply to Davidson and Dahl. Perspectives on Psychological Science13, 66–69.

This page contains links to files in Portable Document Format (PDF), Microsoft Word and other formats. If your browser can not display these files directly, please see our information on accessibility and document viewers.

Welcome to the new GT Work Science Center!

Our decision to launch this Center came after years of discussion with colleagues about limitations of the performance-centric orientation and the relatively insular perspectives often used by scientists who study work and organizational behavior.  Scientific and methodological advances across psychology and other disciplines underscore the importance of understanding work in terms of multilevel dynamic processes.  These processes capture the complex, emergent relationships between an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, work role, and the social workplace.  At the same time, external forces affecting organizations and the work experience have revived important practical questions about how purpose and meaning, social relationships, longer working lives, and technologies affect work attitudes, engagement, performance, health, and psychological well-being. 

psychology of work has valuable implications for many stakeholders.  Work is a fundamental aspect of human life.  For most people, identities and aspirations related to work begin early in life and are continuously shaped by community, family, schooling, and economic realities.  Getting a (decent) job, learning new skills, advancing one’s career, changing one’s work-role, job loss, and unemployment represent powerful work episodes with immediate and lagged consequences to psychological well-being, physical health, and public policy.  What happens during work — our interactions with supervisors, colleagues, and clients — affect our emotions and contribute to the satisfaction of life goals and core human motives to be competent and to belong.  A person-centric psychology of work encompasses a large scientific territory that connects to other areas of psychology and other fields.  Further, an integrative psychology of work has many implications for real-world concerns, ranging from how organizations manage an older workforce, to the role of corporate social responsibility programs. In short, we think it is an excellent time to advance an integrative scientific psychology of work, based on a person-centric perspective.    

Two Calls to Action:

1.  To provide a shared foundation for this venture, we ask your help in identifying a set of Grand Challenges that work-science scholars need to address.  Grand Challenges represent the critical scientific and people-context problems that, if addressed, can advance our understanding of working in the 21st century.  Please click here to send your Grand Challenge suggestions, and we will collate these suggestions for discussion on the website.

2. Over the next year we expect to publish several papers on key topics in our Thinking Forward Series. If you would like to discuss contributing such a paper, please contact Ruth Kanfer at

We hope that the Work Science Center goals and mission resonates with you, and welcome your input as we move forward.

The Work Science Center Team