Recently, my former State Department colleague, Anne Marie Slaughter, ignited a firestorm of controversy with her piece in The Atlantic "Why Women Can't Have it All." The debate has raged across the blogosphere and editorial pages with responses to her article revealing just how sensitive a topic this remains. Some commentators nodded in vigorous agreement, others violently disagreed and still others questioned the whole concept of "having it all." Marissa Mayer's appointment as CEO of Yahoo, coupled with the simultaneous announcement of her pregnancy, added yet more fuel to the fire. I wonder, however, if by looking at this issue solely from a women's perspective, we are not missing the bigger point. I believe the more consequential issue is the social and economic price we, as a nation, continue to pay by failing to provide women and men, at every stage of their lives and careers, and at every level of employment, with the resources, support and flexibility they need to succeed in all aspects of their lives.
For decades now, the concept of work-life balance has been talked about, argued over and largely relegated to the pages of human resource journals and women's magazines. At best, programs that are implemented are perceived as "feel good" initiatives that rarely survive in difficult economic times. Programs not viewed as directly contributing to the bottom line are often the first cut. Yet, I would argue that the direct opposite may in fact be true and that such programs can and do have a positive impact on corporate and organizational performance.
Numerous reports and studies have demonstrated that enterprises that invest in their people consistently out-perform the market. In fact, one report indicated that over a five year period, companies included in Fortune's "Best Companies" list that invested in their employees outperformed their counterparts in terms of total stock market return. As CEO of Discovery, I worked hard to implement a variety of work-life programs to help all our employees ---men and women ---- deal with the challenges they faced as parents and caregivers. We had programs covering everything from paid maternity and paternity leave, to flex time, telecommuting and job-sharing. Supporting our employees with these programs and resources helped make Discovery into the great company it is today.
Simply put, employees who are more satisfied with their lives are, by and large, healthier and more productive and that productivity translates into a stronger bottom line. So what is stopping us from moving forward in this critical area? Some argue that in the throes of an economic crisis, with many companies and other institutions fighting to survive, it is neither feasible nor appropriate to roll-out programs and initiatives perceived to be costly add-ons. Others argue that government should take the lead and implement policies requiring corporations to provide these programs. Yet the solution to this problem may be far less complicated. We can do a lot right here, right now, without a big policy debate, government intervention or increases in operating expense. All it takes is common sense and the will to change.
A few small steps in the right direction can make a big difference. Business owners, CEOs, enterprise leaders and managers at every level and in every organization working with their employees can find solutions to these seemingly intractable problems. Quite simply, it is a matter of conveying trust, respect and a willingness to do things differently. Starting with a sharp-eyed analysis of goals and objectives and focused on end results, employees and managers working together can find ways to accommodate both the needs of business and the demands of daily life. Flexibility and accountability are the keys to success. Managers must be flexible and trust their employees to do what needs to be done and employees must be held accountable for results.
Undoubtedly there will be hard choices and difficult decisions on both sides. Not every need can or should be accommodated nor every challenge addressed. The unexpected crisis or event will inevitably arise and not every solution works for every job. Employees whose jobs are tied to a specific location can't telecommute, more technology is not the answer to every problem and larger enterprises are more able to deal with these matters than small businesses or not for profit organizations. That is just the reality we live with. But for those institutions determined to find solutions, there is a wide array of proven approaches that can be deployed without disrupting organizational performance.
Building even a little flexibility into an otherwise rigid schedule can help enormously. For example, some businesses have transitioned vacation and sick leave programs into "paid time off." This gives employees more control over their own time. They can use their leave to do what they want, when they want. In other cases, employees can take time off and make up the lost time later. From an employer's perspective what matters is the end result. Not how and when things get done.
By shifting our focus to being sure we meet or beat our goals we can significantly advance all our interests. The world will not end or a business collapse if an employee takes time for a school visit or simply to relax. And if bigger institutions take the lead, they will help shape a work culture that, across the spectrum, places greater value on the importance of supporting men and women in the workplace. This is not just a women's issue or a family issue, it affects every person at every stage in their lives. We can and should do better. Our country and our citizens deserve no less.
Judith McHale is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cane Investments, LLC.
From 2009 to 2011 she served as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Previously McHale was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Discovery Communications.
Young Bucks: Anne-Marie Slaughter on having it all
A 'Very Hostile' Response to Anne-Marie Slaughter
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Author Of Atlantic Essay 'Why Women Still Can't Have It ...
A cynical and lazy view of what makes workers valuable. Same reason potential employers feel the need to snoop at facebook profiles and peer into credit reports: Relying on simplistic measures such as 1. How much time per day an employee will work 2. How few vacation days they take, 3. How few personal foibles unrelated to work they have. I once asked a manager what the problem would be in giving workers 4 weeks rather than 2 week vacations and the answer was "with that much time off they won't want to come back.
Window missed. Now we aren't all in this together.
Business is waging a war of attrition, since solidarity is off the table, it's time for some guerilla tactics from the large minority who have had their eyes opened. Employed or not.
I don't mind a guy climbing the ladder, as long as he's not doing it by standing on my shoulders while shoving my head below the muck line. It's okay for someone to have a larger piece of the pie, but I'd prefer a small slice to crumbs. It's alright for people to amass exhoribant amounts of wealth, as long as it's not at the expense of those who can least afford it.
If people just did right by others, half of all our personal and professional problems would simply vanish overnight. What a dream.
Which they CAN.
If there was ever a time in history that we, as a country, need UNIONS, it is now.
===
What is stopping us is that it's an employer-driven world, and if it's even true that happy employees work better, it's irrelevant. Why? Because the worker will be as productive as the employer demands him to be or he will be out of a job. And that's all the productivity the employer wants. The employer has already made his calculations, and to produce X profit he has to sell Y widgets, and for that, workers will have to make Z widgets per hour.
Besides, more productive employees means fewer employees, which means higher unemployment.
The right, of course, hates unions of any sort because they cater to the wishes of their wealthy masters. Once upon a time The Democratic Party stood in large part for the American worker. Once they realized that getting elected and re-elected was a matter of how much money they could raise, they abandoned the American worker to become a shamefully weaker version of the Republicans.
Perhaps what this country really needs is a Labor Party like those in Europe, one composed of workers and that looks out for the best interests of workers. Without either strong unions or a formal party dedicated to workers interests, American workers are doomed to becoming little better than Chinese coolies.
Walmart under the control of Sam Walton showed a company can outperform the competition while encouraging his employees growth and satisfaction. When he passed, under the control of the 'bean counters', grew at the expense of their employees and suppliers. Why hire a full time employee and encourage his loyalty with raises and benefits when you can hire part time at minimum wage and save the expense of retirement and benefits? Why "Buy American" when a chinese company will make almost the same product for less by paying starvation wages. Does anyone except the management cadre enjoy working there? Who cares? Another destitute worker is waiting to replace that disgruntled part time employee when he finally quits. Who cares if a Walmart employee cannot afford to raise a family or own a home? What happens when most of the jobs in America pay no more than Walmart wages?
If an entrepreneur prospers because he had a novel concept and then hired and motiviated a first class team to develop it, that business is bought out and joins the 'vampire' business culture. An ethical and enlightened CEO will be driven out by a board that wants short term earnings growth. Watch what happens to Facebook.
I see where liberals are coming from with regards to questioning unfettered business autonomy. They fear workers will get shortchanged. Many conservatives, and I agree here, believe that workers will actually be better off with less regulations because the economy will grow and there will be more jobs. If jobs are plentiful who would work 60 hour weeks and not be there for their kids?
It is all about jobs. Always about jobs.
You might take the cost of regulation compliance and, instead of keeping it as increased profit, pass it along to your customers in the form of lower prices. That might increase business, and you could hire more people. But you're basically taking business from your competitors, and your competitors are laying off people in view of their lower sales, so your hiring doesn't increase the net number of jobs. Also, your competitors will soon drop their prices too, since they're saving the same savings you are, and you'll be back to parity.
It's true that lower prices stimulate demand, but only to the limits of our consumption. Eggs are $1.80 a dozen here. If they go on sale for $1.50, I might buy two dozen, but I won't buy more eggs until the two dozen are gone. Most price drops stimulate short-term demand but do not change long-term consumption.
By trying to get forever more productivity out of fewer employees working for less money, some corporations are, perhaps unwittingly, impoverishing their own customer base, which will in the long run impoverish the corporations as fewer people have the money to buy what they sell.
A century ago, asked why he paid such high wages, Henry Ford replied that he wanted all of his workmen to be able to afford to own one of the cars they were making. It's a principle too many businesses have forgotten. Your employees are also your customers, if they can afford it.