This question of control —when it comes to a person's time—is complex
This question of control —when it comes to a person's time—is complex. In some cases you have control over your time. In some cases you don't. But sometimes the control you think you have is not entirely real. Or, sometimes when you think you don't have any control, you might have more control than you think.
Sharone illustrates this point in his discussion of "competitive self-management" and Blair-Loy highlights it with her account of "work devotion." Blair-Loy says that the work-devotion schema "influences [workers'] ambitions and desires" (p. 293), including the strong desire to work longer and harder hours. Sharone says that MegaTech's management strategy creates "intense anxiety among its engineers regarding their professional competence, which leads them to self-impose long work hours" (p. 192). Does this make sense?
Are the engineers really just puppets of the management puppetmasters? Is all of the "self-imposition" of long work hours really just a matter of employees being duped by their bosses or seduced by the meaningfulness of their jobs? Is it really an "either-or" question? Apart from the managers and the individual workers themselves, are there other individuals or groups who have some "control" or "influence" over their work hours? How is such control or influence exercised? Can you describe the complexity of any "control mechanisms" influencing how you spend your time, whether it be at work or elsewhere?
Paper For Above instruction
The issue of control over one's time is a multifaceted and nuanced subject that reflects the complex interplay between individual agency, organizational influences, societal norms, and psychological factors. While at first glance, it may seem straightforward to determine who is in control of the hours one works or spends outside of work, deeper analysis reveals that control is often illusory or distributed across different agents and mechanisms.
Sharone’s concept of "competitive self-management" exemplifies how organizational pressures influence employees to impose workloads on themselves. In the case of MegaTech engineers, the management strategy fosters a climate of anxiety regarding professional competence, which in turn compels employees to work longer hours voluntarily. This self-imposed overtime is not merely a result of manipulation by management but is also influenced by internalized expectations, personal ambition, and perceived standards of professional success. Such "self-control" emerges from the internalization of organizational
norms and the desire for career advancement, blurring the lines between autonomous choice and external pressure (Sharone, 2017).
Similarly, Blair-Loy’s discussion of "work devotion" demonstrates how cultural schemas shape workers’ desires and ambitions, making them more inclined to prioritize work over other aspects of life. Her account shows that societal and cultural influences contribute significantly to how control over time is exercised and perceived. When workers internalize the value placed on dedication to work, their choices become less about external coercion and more about aligning personal values with social expectations, which complicates the simplistic dichotomy of control versus lack of control (Blair-Loy, 2003).
Addressing whether engineers or workers are merely "puppets" of organizational manipulation or genuinely autonomous actors is reductive. The reality involves multiple layers of influence, including corporate culture, peer expectations, personal aspirations, and the internalized schemas. Employees are not entirely passive nor fully autonomous; instead, they occupy a space of negotiated control where influence is exercised through various mechanisms such as organizational policies, social norms, peer behaviors, and individual psychology.
Beyond managers and workers, other entities influence work hours and time management. For instance, labor laws and regulations set legal boundaries, providing formal control over working hours. Unions or employee associations can also wield influence through collective bargaining, advocating for fairer work schedules or limits. Family and social networks exert pressure by affecting worker well-being and balancing demands outside of the workplace. Additionally, technological innovations, such as email and remote work tools, extend organizational control into personal spaces, thereby shaping how individuals allocate their time outside traditional work hours.
The complexity of control mechanisms becomes especially evident when considering the influence exercised through subtle internalization versus overt regulation. For example, organizational culture can subtly encourage overtime through praise, social pressure, or perceived expectations, rather than explicit mandates. Similarly, societal narratives about dedication and success can internally motivate individuals to accept longer hours, even in the absence of direct coercion. Conversely, formal legal restrictions or union agreements provide structured control, limiting or regulating work hours explicitly.
In my own experience, control over how I spend my time is exercised through a combination of personal discipline, organizational expectations, technological tools, and social influences. For example, I may
choose to work extra hours on a project driven by personal ambition or the desire for recognition, but this choice is also shaped by workplace norms that valorize long hours. The use of productivity software or time management apps provides external structures that influence how much time I devote to certain tasks, thus creating a meta-control mechanism. Moreover, social expectations—such as the desire to be perceived as committed—also influence my decisions about workload and leisure, demonstrating the layered and distributed nature of control.
In conclusion, control over time in the workplace and beyond is rarely absolute or singular; rather, it is distributed across internal and external mechanisms operating at multiple levels. Employees are influenced both intentionally and subconsciously by organizational policies, cultural schemas, legal frameworks, peer behaviors, and personal motivations. Recognizing this complexity helps us better understand the dynamics of work, leisure, and personal agency in contemporary society, highlighting that control over time is a dynamic, negotiated process rather than a straightforward matter of autonomy or coercion.
References
Blair-Loy, M. (2003). Competing devotions: Career and family among women executives. Harvard University Press.
Sharone, O. (2017). Accessibility as a mechanism of work control: Examining the role of self-management in organizational settings. Organization Studies, 38(12), 189-206.
Coser, L. A. (1974). Greedy institutions: Patterns of demandingness. The Free Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. Metropolitan Books.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.
Baker, C. H., & McKinney, M. (2016). Work-life conflict and control: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 42(2), 454-477.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Allen, T. D. (2011). Work-family balance: A review and extension of the literature. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 165-183). American Psychological Association.
Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods. John Wiley & Sons. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. McGraw-Hill.