Two prominent leaders made the same point in Fortune this week: work-life balance, they said, is not something they believe in. I am not interested in arguing with them. I am more interested in what happens when a leader’s personal answer quietly becomes the team’s unwritten rule.

Because the work-life balance debate is not really about balance. It is about the definition of work.

And every person on your team is carrying one.

Key takeaways

  • In Fortune coverage on October 21 and October 24, 2026, Martha Stewart and Golden State Valkyries president Jess Smith each rejected the idea of work-life balance for themselves.
  • A leader’s view of work-life balance is a definition of work: a belief about what work is for and how much of life it should hold. It is personal, and it is legitimate.
  • The risk is not a leader who loves the grind. The risk is when that personal definition turns into an unstated standard that hours and availability are the proof of commitment.
  • Jess Smith offers a useful model: she names her own definition openly and still sets an explicit expectation that her staff take time off.

What’s happening: leaders are rejecting work-life balance out loud

On October 21, Fortune’s Preston Fore reported on Martha Stewart calling work-life balance a myth. Speaking with Vivian Tu, Stewart, now 85, described waking at 4 a.m., reading the newspaper, exercising and starting work by 7 a.m. “There is no such thing as balance—just get that through your thick skulls,” she said. People who manage it now and then, she added, she is jealous of, “but they’re also boring.”

The same piece pointed to TIAA CEO Thasunda Brown Duckett, who has said, “Work-life balance is a lie. It never reconciles … So get rid of that.” Fortune also noted that work-life balance remains a top priority for many aspiring young professionals, which is exactly why these comments travel.

Three days later, on October 24, Fortune’s Emma Burleigh profiled Golden State Valkyries president Jess Smith and her rejection of work-life balance. “I don’t subscribe to work-life balance,” Smith said. “I really try to live in gratitude.” After having two children, she said, she learned to be open about loving her work: “I’m not apologizing for what brings me joy.”

Here is the part of Smith’s story I would underline. She does not ask her team to share her definition. According to Fortune, she treats self-care as non-negotiable and extends that expectation to the team’s roughly 88 full-time staff. She encourages people to take vacation, reminds people managers that staff get two work-from-home weeks, and points to November and December as offseason months for rest. “You absolutely have to take care of yourself—period, full stop,” she said. And: “I also expect them to take time off.”

Same headline. Two very different leadership signals underneath it.

Why work-life balance is a definition of work, not a work ethic

In The Next Turn, I describe two changes happening at once. The first turn is the definition of work: what people believe work is for, what it should provide and how much of a life it should hold. The second is the structure of work: how work actually flows, now that AI is reshaping it. This week’s stories sit squarely in the first turn.

In Chapter 3, “What Each Generation Believes Work Is,” I argue that the real differences on teams are not differences of style. They are differences of belief. Some people experience work as duty and reliability proven over time. Some see it as something to manage well. Some see it as growth and meaning. Some see it as one component of a broader life strategy. Those patterns can show up by generation, but as the Pew Research Center reminds us, generational labels are broad reference points, not fixed boxes. Within every age group, individuals land in very different places.

The point is not which definition is right. The point is that each one makes sense from the inside.

None of these definitions are irrational. They are adaptive.

The Next Turn

Stewart’s definition makes sense for Stewart. Smith’s makes sense for Smith. Someone on your team who protects their evenings, at any age or career stage, has a definition that makes sense too. Leadership trouble starts when one of those definitions is treated as the standard and the others are treated as a lack of commitment.

Standards vs. signals: hours are not the standard

Chapter 13, “Building a Shared Definition of Good Work,” separates two things leaders often blur. Standards are what the organization actually needs: quality, reliability, accountability, sound judgment, follow-through, care. Signals are the visible cues we use to infer those standards: time, visible effort, responsiveness, presence, endurance.

A leader who starts at 7 a.m. and loves it is not the problem. The problem is when the 7 a.m. start becomes the signal everyone else is measured against. When the boss sends messages at 9 p.m., people read it as a standard unless someone tells them otherwise. When the leader talks publicly about never balancing anything, people hear an expectation unless the leader defines one.

Reliability is the principle. Sitting at a desk for a fixed number of hours was one signal.

The Next Turn

That is what Smith gets right. She keeps her own definition. She also makes the team expectation explicit: take time off, use the work-from-home weeks, rest in the offseason. She separates her personal signal from the organizational standard, out loud.

Most leaders never say it. They assume their behavior is neutral. It is not. On a team, the leader’s habits are the loudest signal in the room.

The leader as translator

In Chapter 14, “The Leader as Translator,” I argue that leading across generations is not about picking a winner. It is about coherence. Not uniformity, where everyone must work the way the leader works. Not fragmentation, where everyone quietly invents their own rules. Coherence.

Coherence does not eliminate difference. It gives difference somewhere to operate without breaking the system.

The Next Turn

Translation runs both ways. A leader who loves the work can explain why: the joy, the energy, the meaning they find in it. And that same leader can be clear that the organization is not asking everyone to share it. What the organization is asking for is the standard: the quality, the reliability, the follow-through. How people sustain that over a career is a conversation worth having, not a test of loyalty.

That clarity matters more now, not less. As AI compresses tasks and makes effort harder to see, hours will become an even weaker proof of value. Leaders who still read long days as commitment will misread their people in both directions.

Your next turn

  • Name your own definition of work. Write one sentence about what work means to you and how much of your life you want it to hold. Then ask whether your team knows it is yours, not theirs.
  • Audit your signals. Look at when you send messages, when you praise people, and who you describe as “committed.” Are you rewarding standards, or rewarding your own schedule?
  • Say the expectation out loud. Like Smith, tell your team plainly what you expect around time off, response times and after-hours messages. If you send late emails, say whether you expect late replies.
  • Ask, don’t assume. In your next one-on-ones, ask: “What does a sustainable week look like for you?” Listen for the definition of work underneath the answer.
  • Define the standard in operational terms. Pick one word you use often, like “commitment” or “ownership,” and define what it looks like in results, not hours.

Frequently asked questions

Is work-life balance a myth?

For some leaders, yes, and that can be a healthy personal choice. But work-life balance is best understood as one definition of work among several. The leadership question is not whether balance exists. It is whether your team knows which expectations are yours and which are the organization’s.

How should a manager handle different views of work-life balance on a multigenerational team?

Start by separating standards from signals. Agree on what good work requires: quality, reliability, follow-through. Then let people meet those standards in different ways. Avoid treating any one generation’s view as the norm; individual definitions vary within every age group.

Does a leader who works long hours set a bad example?

Not necessarily. The issue is whether the leader’s hours become an unspoken standard. Leaders who love long days can be open about why, and still state clearly that time off, rest and boundaries are expected of the team, as Jess Smith does with her staff.

Closing

I do not think leaders need to apologize for loving their work. I also do not think teams should have to guess whether that love is a requirement.

The new burden on leadership is making explicit what used to be assumed. Your personal definition of work is one of those things.

So here is the question I would sit with this week: if your team copied your schedule exactly, would you call that success, or a signal you never meant to send?

You can find more on standards, signals and the two turns on the Next Turn blog.

Sources