Work-life balance is not synonymous with smart working: debunking a myth

Working from home is not the same as living better. And yet many companies continue to use the two concepts as if they were interchangeable. Meanwhile, true work-life balance — the kind that affects gender equality, mental health, and organizational culture — remains largely unresolved.

The shortcut that looked like a revolution

Since 2020, smart working has become the symbol of modern work. A rapid, almost improvised shift that many companies later turned into an employer branding asset: “with us, you can work from home” became synonymous with being people-oriented and progressive.

The problem is that working from home is not, in itself, an act of balance. It is a tool, and like all tools, its impact depends entirely on how it is used.

Anyone who has worked remotely while attending meetings from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., remaining constantly reachable, and being expected to reply immediately on company channels even on Sunday mornings knows exactly what this means. The desk was at home. The balance was nowhere to be found.

“It doesn’t exist”: when even high performers admit it

There is an important cultural aspect worth considering: the debate around work-life balance does not concern only companies and ordinary employees. It concerns anyone managing multiple roles under pressure.

Scarlett Johansson — actress, entrepreneur, and mother of two — recently stated on CBS Sunday Morning that acknowledging the impossibility of perfect balance is, paradoxically, the first step toward achieving something sustainable. In her view, there will always be a “deficit” somewhere, either in work or in private life, and learning to accept that without self-punishment is a form of maturity.

“You can’t do everything perfectly all the time,” she said. “The question you have to ask yourself is: is it enough?”

This highlights how the idea of “perfect balance” is often a narrative construct, and how dangerous it can be to use it as a benchmark for evaluating corporate policies.

What work-life balance really means

Work-life balance is not a question of location. It is a question of time, culture, and power.

• Time: how much of it do I actually have, and how much control do I have over it?
• Culture: does the company I work for reward people who are always connected, or people who know how to disconnect?
• Power: can I really say “no” to a 7:30 a.m. call or leave at 5 p.m. without feeling guilty?

The invisible burden that smart working does not reduce

In certain contexts, smart working has not lightened the load. In many cases, it has made it heavier. The home simultaneously became an office, a school, an emotional emergency room, and a kitchen. The overlap between these spheres hit hardest those who were already carrying a double burden.

This is not a matter of personal organization. It is a systemic issue that suddenly became more visible.

What gender equality management systems really require

UNI/PdR 125:2022 — the Italian reference practice for gender equality in organizations — addresses work-life balance in a much more comprehensive way than most corporate policies do.

It is not about offering one more day of remote work. It is about building a system that guarantees:

• Accessible leave for all genders. Not only maternity leave, but paternity leave as well. Not only the formal right, but also a culture that allows people to exercise that right without implicit or explicit penalties. In Italy, mandatory paternity leave is still only ten days. Meanwhile, in Sweden, fathers can take up to 90 days exclusively reserved for them.
• Real flexibility, not performative flexibility. Flexible hours that nobody actually uses because those who do are perceived as less committed are not flexibility at all — they are merely a policy on paper. The difference between genuine flexibility and performative flexibility is measured by managers’ behavior, not by internal regulations.
• A culture of time that does not reward presence. Presenteeism — whether physical or digital — is one of the most powerful mechanisms for reproducing inequality. If a company implicitly rewards people who are always available, it is systematically penalizing those with caregiving responsibilities.

The problem is not the couch, it is the model

Smart working is a useful tool. In some contexts, an invaluable one. But it is not the answer to the wrong question.

The right question is not “where do we work?” but “how do we treat people’s time?” And then: “Are we treating everyone’s time equally, regardless of gender, role, or life stage?”

As long as companies answer the second question by showing their remote working policy, we are still talking about something else entirely.

True work-life balance — the kind that has a real impact on people’s lives and on equality between men and women — requires a deeper paradigm shift: rethinking the value of time, redesigning workloads, normalizing leave for all genders, measuring results rather than hours, and building environments where caregiving is not something to hide, but a recognized and protected dimension of life.

“It’s good enough,” to borrow Johansson’s words. Or rather: the question “is it enough?” is legitimate for those who have the power to choose. For those who cannot choose — for those who experience the deficit because of structural reasons, gender, role, or corporate culture — the answer must come first, and it must come from the organization.

This is not a matter of benefits. It is a matter of culture. And culture, unlike policy, cannot be changed with a memo.

MiRò Comunicazione is committed to complying with UNI/PdR 125:2022 guidelines on gender equality, promoting an inclusive and equitable workplace.