Does Bad Economic News Equal Good News For Women?

The administration sees green shoots appearing in the economic data. We share that optimism. But we're focused on the arrival of a different color - we see a pink lining in this recession.

In the midst of all the fiscal gloom, the stress over stress tests, there is a part of the population which is, in fact, benefiting from the economic environment. Women. America is on the verge of the biggest workplace revolution since the Second World War. Back then, women were ushered into the work force in vast, unprecedented numbers. And they stayed. Now a different national crisis is set to remake the labor force. In a new and dramatic fashion.

We call this seismic shift Womenomics: the emergence of a new workforce dynamic that is giving women the power to tailor their work lives to better suit their needs. It is a revolution that will allow us to live and work the way we've always wanted.

We have enormous professional clout today. Clout that most women don't even know about. Survey after survey from California to Norway shows that women are not only good for business, but that companies that employ more senior women actually make more money. Call it Pink Profits. The female management style is seen as distinct--and even better. We're more inclusive, more focused on long-term results and more risk-averse. The buzz this year at Davos? How much better off the economic world would be right now if there had been more sisters at Lehman Brothers. Women are no longer employed as a polite nod to office diversity; we get the jobs because we get the job done - and bring in the profits.

Moreover, in this downturn men are losing their jobs at a faster pace than women. Any day now we will make up a majority in the U.S. labor market. Women are also better educated than men, with more of the coveted graduate degrees that are key indicators of professional and managerial success. And we have the power of our purses. We consume more than men (in 2007, for the first time women even bought more cars than men) and those spending dollars give us huge leverage. Who knows how to cater to our tastes better than we do?

Could it be that it's okay -- finally -- to state the obvious? We're not men.

We not only don't work the same way--we don't want the same things or relish the climb up the corporate ladder with such testosterone-driven zeal. We have come to realize that the old career goal of "having it all" really meant "doing it all", that doesn't work for us. Indeed, those 60-hour work weeks, the office-meeting-to-day-care-closing dashes, the juggling and struggling - they all tend to push us out the corporate door forever. As Harvard Business School discovered a few years ago, when women are faced with the agonizing choice between career and kids, the children tend to win.

But in a Womenomics world, we don't have to make that choice anymore. We now have so much clout in the marketplace that we're not prepared to sit meekly at the boardroom table anymore. We're rebuilding that table and making it more female friendly.

All across America professional women are carving out work lives that really suit them. Lives where they have time for children, elderly parents, pets, marathons or just themselves. Four out of five of us say we want more flexibility at work. More and more of us want less responsibility. We no longer see our careers as ladders but as waves. We are asking for -- and for the first time, in big numbers, we are getting -- the right to dial our careers down and dial them back up, according to our needs.

It's not always easy or straightforward--but we're choosing to negotiate, to push, for work arrangements that allow us to keep our careers rather than abandon them. And it's working, because (who knew?) we're valuable! The mommy-track isn't a seldom-traveled road to nowhere anymore. It's become a busy path, often shared by men these days, and one that can still lead to the upper eschelons. Gen Y, in fact, won't travel any other way, and employers are rushing to accommodate.

And here's the really exciting thing; the companies that let us work the way we want are discovering huge benefits. Businesses like Best Buy, which have thrown out the clocks and now judge performance entirely on results rather than hours spent in the cubicle, have seen their productivity increase enormously--sometimes by as much as 40%. Why? Because if you treat women, and men, like adults, it should be little surprise their performance improves.

Hang on, you're probably thinking. What about the big R word? Won't the recession just put an end to all of this nutty-crunch, feel-good stuff? On the contrary. The truth is rocky economic times are speeding the change. Companies that can no longer reward employees with hefty bonuses, or even any additional cash at all, are looking for more creative ways to hang on to valuable talent. Women, the majority of whom will trade status and dollars for time, are suddenly finding their employers more receptive to alternative work schedules than they were during boom times. And so women are doubly desirable employees now, because not only is our work valued, but our values make us more flexible to strapped employers. Since time is our critical currency, since we're often looking beyond money alone, we can help employers ride out the crises while reaping benefits ourselves.

Four-day work weeks, furloughs, working from home to save on real-estate costs--all of these once exotic arrangements have become even more commonplace in recent months. And just as with the arrival of women in factories in the 1940s--things will never be the same. Because these moves aren't just a short-term fix. They will usher in efficiencies and productivity boosts that so far, only enlightened companies have benefited from, and that the newcomers won't want to lose.

The world of Womenomics has arrived. Don't let the gloomy economic headlines frighten you. It's a terrific time to be a professional woman.

This is the start of a regular Womenomics conversation we'll be having here, on everything from the changing nature of the workplace, to redefining success--for yourself, to how to handle confrontations with your boss. Weigh in!

Comments

[WorkingClass]

I rather doubt that the depression is a good thing for working American women. Unless you believe that what is bad for men must be good for women.

[MerrieWay]

Whoops! Granted 'Women’s Lib' had a battle and a mountain to climb. I got in and gazed at the glass ceiling after Betty Friedan and others had bull-dozed through the front door. Inspiring thought -'womenonics'- we deserve the right to shine our power. But, this being a better time for women than men in an economic meltdown is a bit Pollyannaish - and where are the statisics on that notion?

Last MerrieWay heard, women overall earned 78 cents for one dollar a man earns. Unless a calculator can prove me wrong, that adds up to women clocking in on the downside.

[RegDame]

Women are great for the bottom line. They actually work, and they get lower pay and fewer perks, so in times of fiscal problems they're the bargain hirees. What else is new?

[Claire Shipman and Katty Kay - Huffpost Blogger]

Indeed. Again--lower pay must be changed. In that respect--women understanding the power we have now in the marketplace can actually provide options. Ask for more money if you don't want to bargain for more time. Women have to get better at demanding what they want. Clearly.
What's changed is that we're actually--­finally--r­eally understood to be better for the bottom-line. We are a huge asset--not just diversity window-dressing. And that can be used.

[Elizabeth Gregory - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi ladies,

I'd say we're in a half full / half empty moment -- you're stressing the benefits we've gained as well as the potential for more positives if we continue to move toward paying women fair wages and at the have time to actually devote time and attention to their kids (who will be the citizens, consumers and workers of tomorrow). Flexibility is part of that -- and so are a national childcare system, paid sick days, and equal pay. But those won't just happen without advocacy, and there are big risks that women in traditionally male jobs will actually suffer a lot of setbacks in the recession. See my post from earlier today at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-gregory/remember-mama_b_195450.html
and earlier posts on related issues like
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-gregory/a-family-friendly-recessi_b_171785.html
We can get there, but nobody's going to hand it to us.

[indy100]

I agree with you. As a 46-year old mother of four who has worked since age 17 I know that we have come a LONG way. We still have a long way to go, but we have the numbers and the X and Y generations have the attitude and expectations to pursue even more. My daughters have it easier than I did as a working mom when they were small, but daycare is still a huge issue that needs to be addressed. We all need to be fighting for daycare, flextime, PTO, and more women at the top. I agree with this article that this mess we're in would most likely not have happened if women had been in control. While "winner" or whatever. We also tend to look out for our sisters a little better than men look out for each other, and because most of us are mothers we are always considering the future.

[Claire Shipman and Katty Kay - Huffpost Blogger]

Agree. We are certainly trying to focus on the positive--­-especiall­y because we noticed in our research that most women don't even know there is anything positive. And when all of the data is combined--it can be empowering. And maybe provoke more movement in our favor. And so on and so forth.

[LeftCoastOracle]

This column is absolutely brilliant. 35 years ago I was in the streets with other modern feminists demonstrating for women's rights. I recall being with Florence Kennedy when she climbed on top of a glass display case in the May & Co. store in downtown Cleveland to protest the socks that they were selling: they had a really offensive graphic and message about rape on them. I doubt that the manager got it but he did get rid of the socks because the press showed up. I bet he gets it today (if he's still alive) and that's exactly why I'm thrilled with this column. Our work paid off.

[amymsewell]

I would like to see numbers please -- statistics; demographics, percentages based on income level and race and overall the number of those involved in this change compared to the overall number of women in the workforce. It would also be great to see a list of the companies engaging in this practice AND the companies making greater profits with the women at the top (and how many women are in these positions). If it is true, great -- but show the numbers and please back up with your sources. I fear that if it cannot be substantiated, it's a real black eye not only on reporting but perception we then provide the general public. -- i.e. really our credibility to just what are the real issues and concerns with regard to the current state of gender inequality.

Additionally, it would be great to interview the women who are now in these "flexible" positions. I am curious. We created the second shift started during WWII and then continued it with the "having it all" mentality and I'd like to be sure we aren't creating a third shift. Thank you.

[Claire Shipman and Katty Kay - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually there are a lot of terrific numbers--it's part of the reason we wrote the book. In terms of senior women in management and profits--check out Pepperdine University study of Fortune 500 companies. They are the major players, as you might expect. University of California at Davis in 2005 found the same thing. Catalyst has similar numbers. There is something that women bring to the mix that seems to make a difference. It's actually hard to pin down exactly what it is--but most attribute it to management style.

The companies engaging in the is practice are too many to list comprehensively. But Capitol One, Best Buy, Wal-mart are among them. And they all report much higher productivity when they loosen the leash. But Working Mother magazine and the Family and Work institute both have incredibly comprehensive lists of companies on the bandwagon.

Basically what they've discovered is it's not about giving women a cushy "flexible" schedule--it's just a much better method for getting better work out of people.

But to be sure--this is the start of a movement. There's plenty of 1950's mentality left.

[amymsewell]

Thanks -- I'll check into the book and the sites. It'd be great for any of these orgs to keep a constant running website list of companies that are doing this so that we can support them. For example, my husband was out shopping around for banks and told me about Capital One and I shrugged -- but now I'm going to tell him -- "yeah -- let's go with them!"

Also, one thought that came later -- why can't we demand more money AND more time. Men have all along. It shouldn't be a barter with us. How about getting to the top and having more assistants to whom you can delegate your style and thus, have time to make the after school soccer game.

[bighat]

This is the first I have heard of this. Sounds like spin or a pep talk but who knows. If true, how does a man ever get a job. Women have all the money. They must. They not only live longer than men but genrally marry someone older.

[jmattei]

Interesting thoughts, though as most working women will vouch, the theory often doesn't survive its first encounter with reality. A very large proportion of corporations are still being run by people who cling to the '50's model of career path expectation for themselves and their employees. The old prejudices are still there. More important, like tends to promote like, meaning that the successors are in the mold(s) of their mentors philosophically and intellectually. Until the dinosaurs of both sexes die off, I see very little reason for celebration, to wit:
Women are significantly under-represented in leadership roles in government and business (tokens are for riding the subway)
Women are significantly over-represented in minimum-wage, hourly paid jobs that offer less than full time hours (so they aren't eligible for benefits)
Women at all levels earn only 75% of the pay males in the same jobs earn, even at the same companies (hence, the need for Lilly Ledbetter law)
Women who are paid the same as their peers for the same jobs are often denied or marginalized when the subjective (bonus) compensation decisions are being made.
An intelligence boost is really what's required; when businesses stop favoring "work hard" over "work smart" the seeds of real change will be sown.

[Claire Shipman and Katty Kay - Huffpost Blogger]

Exactly. Enlightened companies now understand 'work hard' doesn't always yield the best results. Working smart---or basically-­-encouragi­ng a focus on results instead of time in a cubicle or office chair or whatever--just makes sense all around.

]You are right we're not there yet---hardly. And I agree--many companies may just be too mired in tradition to change. But you'd be surprised. Read more about what Tom Mars--a self-proclaimed old-school sort of guy until 5 or 6 years ago--has done at Wal-Mart.

[jmattei]

First, thanks for responding. My posts don't always make the cut so getting a response is a double-delight.
I must say that we are in general agreement on the overall improvements, certainly during my lifetime. I was happy when job interviewers stopped asking if I was married/ engaged/ planning to get pregnant. The real changes over the past 40 years have been remarkable. Corporations followed the money straight towards the people (women) who REALLY control the purse. I am one of them. I need not re-state that the change stopped at the marketing shoreline, seldom reaching the inner corporate cultures.
What I'm looking forward to is the opportunities that will result from the convergence of this perfect economic storm and the rapidly aging workforce. I expect the dinosaurs to starve to death very quickly as their adaptable, enlightened competitors take full advantage of all the available resources. It couldn't happen to nicer guys.
When the dust settles, I'll bet the survivors will be happy to have people with superior talent in collaboration, creative thinking, communication & empathy, multi-tasking, organizational skills and endurance - even if they're female.

[BeachedInFlorida]

This would be wonderfully encouraging if I weren't 56 and already laid off due to the banking failures. . .

[inmyhumbleopinion]

"We not only don't work the same way--we don't want the same things or relish the climb up the corporate ladder with such testosterone-driven zeal... "having it all" really meant "doing it all", that doesn't work for us."

Um, excuse me, but don't presume to speak for me or all women. Who says I don't want the same things? And who says that you can't do both at the same time? The real demons here are the "Mommy Mafia" who put so much pressure on women to be perfect mothers and housewives, which means doing EVERYTHING yourself. You don't see men who have children conflicted in the same way, do you?

I have a pretty high-powered career, rising to the level of Senior Vice President AND I have two happy, healthy children. And guess what else? I ***GASP*** hired domestic help in the form of au pairs when my kids were small, along with household cleaning services. My husband is expected to cook every once in awhile and he does.

My point is, flexibility is a wonderful goal for those women who want to take on less at the workplace. But they can't simultaneously expect the doors to the boardroom will open if they don't put in the time. So if they are ambitious, it's going to be hard work. On all fronts.

[JustMyWords]

Of course, you DO realize that you're admitting at least part of the premise - "having it all" DOES mean "doing it all." And you've admitted that that it's not possible - you had domestic help and a cleaning service. You did NOT have both at the same time. You worked in a high level career and hired other people to do the things that, once upon a time, would have been expected of a wife and mother. There's nothing wrong with hiring help, I'm sure there are thousands of women who would love to be able to do so, but it's not the same as 'having it all.'

IMHO, women like you continue to feel that because it was that way for you in the workplace, it must be that way for all other women or they don't deserve to succeed, well, that is as much dinosaur thinking as anything you could pin on old-school men.

[inmyhumbleopinion]

First of all, NO ONE has it all. Not even men, though admittedly they have not traditionally had the demands placed on them that we have. All I'm suggesting is that life is all about making a series of choices with your partner and being comfortable with the choices you make because it works for you.

I'm really tired of the faux-generational split line of thinking--why do women under 40 (and I assume you are, based on the way you wrote your response) insist on creating an angry division between us? What did we ever do to you, other than pave the way in the only ways that were available to us at the time? I applaud the notion of trying to make changes in the way corporations think about their worker's life balance. BUT, none of us are ENTITLED to a living or the key to the executive dining room. Those changes will come with a price, and that price might just be a ceiling that is lower than your skills and education might warrant.

[Nancy2008]

This article is absolutely insulting. Women are the hardest hit, as usual, by the recession. Sexism in general has made a massive come-back. I was at a Democratic function to celebrate Obama's first one hundred days, and do you know what the keynote speaker said? That when women are head of the household, children suffer. Democrats let a guy say that!
Women in the workplace still work harder and get paid less, and if there is any evidence of any changes, please be specific. Career women I know took pay cuts this year right along with men. Jobs created by the stimulus package and bailouts are in male dominated fields. Even the 'teacher of the year' that Obama honored was a man.

It isn't that women couldn't do better, it's just that they aren't.

[Sylvia44]

Not entirely hogwash--just about 90% I am glad some women are benefiting, however briefly. But if what was good for the workforce (especially women) actually had any influence in this country--we would have guaranteed sick days and single payer healthcare. The kind of woman who only cares about breaking through the glass ceiling (doesn't that mean shards of glass cutting into everyone she passed on the way up?) or making the lives of elite professional women more comfortable--that woman may call herself a feminist, but this 2nd-wave feminist, now old and cranky--doesn't buy it. And yeah, I do believe that men are being laid off because they make more money.

You two need to get off camera and get real jobs for awhile.

[Claire Shipman and Katty Kay - Huffpost Blogger]

Had plenty of "real" jobs, including this one!

Yes--clearly men are being laid off because they make more money--but again--rem­ember--tha­t's an opening. Opportunity.

Do women need to be stronger about demanding equal pay from the start? Yes. But to women place a greater value on time and flexibility as compared to salary than men do? Also yes. Both can be true.

Actually the point of Womenomics is that women have an enormous amount of power and leverage in the workforce now--that nobody really recognizes--or knows how to harness. Though we don't run most companies yet--we do have muscle.

And--the plight of professional women may appear elitist---but unless working conditions change--so that they can be convinced to stay in the game--we won't have a shot at running things.

[WarSkeptic]

I'm sure all the single mothers out there are just as happy about the recession as you are

[Claire Shipman and Katty Kay - Huffpost Blogger]

Believe it or not single women want lives too!!!

[LTS72]

thanks for these observations. It is good to know that you are observing some beneficial changes in the workforce. As a stay at home mom, this provides hope that I will be able to enter the paid workforce again without too much discrimination.

I hope more men also begin to see the benefits of flexible work that makes room for families and personal needs. It can't just be up to women and mothers to champion these quality of life issues for our society.

[Cosatjockomo]

So it is true that feminism is no longer about equality. It's about gaining superiority (ya that's been obvious for a long time, but you've made it so apparent here.) Instead of blowing your horn, why don't you take credit for the decline in worker influence in america (double the work force supply and you deminish its ability to negotiate a living rate of pay.) No problem, we'll all just become executives, because they're all such good people, and you gotta love those undeserved bonuses.

[bighat]

I agree with cosajockomo.

We are doing something wrong. There was a time when a family got by one one income. Now it's practically required for both parents to work. Not for extra money or even a better life. Just to make ends meet.