The Social Organization & Womenomics

I read two interesting articles in The Economist over the holiday break - "We Did It" and "Womenomics".  In some ways these articles covered some old ground; women are outpacing men in education and now in employment rates. There is even research to indicate that companies with more women in senior management positions are more profitable. Yet, women still make up a very small fraction of corporate and organizational leadership... it begs a lot of questions.

What the articles did address that I found more interesting is how societies are dealing with having women share equally in the working world. As it turns out - the U.S. is not dealing with the social implications of this very well at all. There are very few structural accommodations for all the things that women used to do when they stayed home: child care, elder care, food preparation, community management, house keeping, etc.  Sure we can pay for all of those things but if families do, most will spend more than one person's salary to do so... so only the richest can afford to fully staff their personal/family needs.  What happens instead?  We do laundry at 11pm, we frantically reschedule business meetings when children get sick and can't go to daycare, we trust strangers with keys to our homes so they they are somewhat clean, we eat crap, and we are all very stressed.  I don't think this is a women's issue any more.  Most of the people in my generation are strung out.  Looking at national demographic data we are also getting fatter, experiencing a rise in childhood mental issues, don't know our neighbors, and have faltering real-world community institutions...

I don't know about the rest of Gen X but I'm a little bothered by being hung out to dry and left to figure out how to deal with all of these issues for myself. My peers have handled this in a variety of ways:

• One person drops out of the workforce or significantly changes their career path when children arrive
• Many people stay single and bury themselves in jobs that take 50+ hours of their time (not sure if this is the chicken or the egg)
• Couples don't have children
• Couples limit themselves to one child because day-care and logistics are simply too hard to deal with otherwise
• Couples hire nannies and both have high powered jobs to support that
• Couples try to juggle two average jobs with daycare
• One parent typically finds a watered-down part-time position to try and keep one foot in the adult and working while spending some time with their children
• One member of the couple 'consults' and is left to a vagaries and loneliness of working alone.
• People are forced to put parents in nursing home or get 24-hour care because they can't live on their own but need someone around more than in the evenings

I know a few exceptional women who simply gave up interesting and challenging careers because they wanted a family but found the trade-offs too much to keep their careers.  Rather than take a dreary part-time job that offered no intellectual challenge or take on the unstable world of part-time consulting, they gave up work entirely. Personally I worked at a management consulting firm in my 20s and I loved the colleagues and the job - and they were going to pay for me to go to business school in exchange for returning there to work. From a career perspective, what could be better?  But I could not possibly see a future where I had to travel 4 days a week, every week. I had the opportunity to get into product management which has a less drastic lifestyle associated with it, so I choose that path. I don't regret that now - I learned a hell of a lot which is very handy now - but it definitely made my career bumpier.

Now I don't have children but my husband and I both work a lot and even without children I'm having a hard time juggling food shopping/cooking, laundry, cleaning, home maintenance, doctor's visits, caring for sick parents, etc. This situation frustrates me, makes me sad, and makes me think of all the amazing skills and experience that organizations are leaving on the table... simply because they cannot figure out how to create positions for people that don't look like what they always have.

For me this is a larger issue than figuring it out for myself - I can do that... it's annoying and I'll make some mistakes but I'll stumble along. However, this is an issue at the heart of being a 'social' organization.  Being 'social' means accommodating variety - including a variety of employee needs.  And it's not just because that is the right thing for the people who work in organizations - it's because people will give their right arm in commitment back to the organizations that give them interesting, challenging work to do in a structure that also allows them to have some semblance of personal sanity.  I'm betting the commitment that results will drive profitability improvements.

There's a lot of talk about how 'social' is transforming customer support and 2010 is the age of customer service... I don't disagree but until employees feel like they have some stability and sanity, there is only so far they are going to go to serve the organization's customer. 

What if organizations had a variety of positions at all levels (yes, executive too) - some of which were 20 hours a week, some 30, some 40, some 50, and some 60... it would not only allow people to decide how many hours they could work it would recognize those that now regularly spend over 40 hours a week working that are somehow just 'expected' to without necessarily getting commensurate recognition for doing so.  What if there were campuses for large and small organizations that had centralized and at-cost day care and elder care?  Some big companies do this today but it is very inconsistent; small & medium size companies only very sporadically offer these types of services.  More often than not, companies rent office space in vast complexes interspersed with parking lots - without any additional services to be had. I bet however, it would be a real competitive differentiator to either offer services as a company or locate in a complex that has a day care, elder care, dry cleaner, gym, grocery store, etc. (office park developers... are you listening?!?) I know a company that offered me challenging work with flexibility and easy to use/economical services would keep me much longer than any of my other employers have.

If you are in the business of figuring out how to make your organization more social and you don't have this issue on your list of things to address... it's time to start thinking about it.

Comments

[Nigel Fortlage]

Rachel, I agree 100% with your take on this. For my own situation with 2 kids, my wife choose (or felt she had too) to go part time and she appears to love based what I know about her after 20+ yrs together.

But at work I see your points all too clearly. That's why one of my approaches is to consider a solid remote worker program that takes into account none contiguous time devoted to work, allows for ways to stay connected and interacting as part of the team, allows for flexible pay based upon work performed as in most cases this applies to front line work in our business not management nor executive as we all work remote already as part of the way we get things done.

This will take time and part of underlying desire to get good at social is to bring it inside the organization and using osmosis take it out to our remote workers. Yes we have challenges with management of people and supervisors who think they need to see the white's of someone's eye's etc... but it is possible and part of our corporate journey.

After all when you start thinking about your place of work, as an employer of choice for new workers, you start to grasp the possible and work outside the box to make it happen.

[Rachel Happe]

Nigel - Kudos to you and I do think there is more and more of this going on thanks to people like you in executive roles that are seeing the issue and the opportunities it brings. Social software, mobile, video all make this flexibility a lot easier to manage but you are also right in that there is a lot of lingering 'if I don't see them working, I don't trust that they are'. I've been fortunate in almost all of my jobs to either be required or allowed to work remotely at times and it has been extremely valuable and due to enlightened managers (for which I've also been fortunate to have had).

Thanks for your thoughts here - this type of thing doesn't happen over night because there are so many cultural/logistic issues.

[Apolinaras "Apollo" Sinkevicius]

Rachel,
I was reading your article and just was itching to start commenting without finishing it (but my willpower helped me finish it). This topic is something I am extremely passionate about, especially as a man who has been surrounded his whole life by phenomenal women.

I will shamelessly suggest you check out my recent article "Time to end the frat house culture! We need more women in our midst." http://leanstartups.com/time-to-end-the-frat-house-culture.html There I cover why do we need more women in the ranks of entrepreneurs, scientists, techies, and leadership, what proof is out there to support my claims, and what I suggest we do.

Now back to your post. What I am sensing a lot is acceptance of the old ways where woman handled all the house duties, child rearing, etc. etc. etc. I think in progressive families (that just also happen to do better, because of the way they operate) gender inequality is becoming less of an issue. I grew up with two other siblings (three of us about year appart) and parents who both had successful careers, were equal partners, and did not use any nannies. They had no "secret" methodology. Both took on tasks (I learned how to cook from my father), both juggled schedules, and both were very efficient. I also do not recall them engaging in BS activities or needless quarrels. Now this was in 70s and 80s in a very conservative country. So don't tell me folks can't get it done here with an abundance of options and services.

Another thing to consider: maybe us gents need to sometimes balance our career drives with that of our partners, so both succeed. It is a better diversification strategy. I left a really nice and cushy position in Chicago to support my wife's move to Boston to do cancer research post-doc in Harvard. I know the day will come when she will do the same for me. It is all about looking at a family as business - family before any other commitments of ego.

Now when it comes to companies, as someone who heads business operations and is usually in charge of molding corporate culture, policies, and endless list of stuff, I have greatly enjoyed deploying those initiatives to make companies I work for irresistible to a broad range of folks. It is not that hard to build an environment that works not only for a single white 20-something gen-Yer, but also for a married gen-Xer with kids, or Babyboomer with an empty nest. You just need to think outside of what B-schools teach and do more listening with more agile/flexible mind.

[Rachel Happe]

Apollo - awesome comment/post/observations - thank you for adding your perspective. I happen to think that fair balance in teamwork creates better outcomes as well.

Your parents were truly exceptional I think and I am fortunate to have very supportive men around me and I couldn't agree with you more that families need to think of themselves as a financial portfolio of assets and risks(if you will) - and manage the ebb and flow that goes with that over time.

I think where I struggle is that I am more willing than many men I know to sacrifice something at work to do something at home. I think that as a woman I may have more psychological pull as well... not sure. So for me - what is an ideal work balance is different than say my husband. I may *want* to be home more than he. My point is - as companies... can we make room for that balance, whatever it is for each woman or man - ultimately it's going to be different for everyone because every person's home life/needs is different and they also change over time. And yes... maybe push some of the men who are more conflicted about leaving work because they feel it may compromise how they are perceived to achieve more balance :)

[MimiMeredith]

First of all...Apollo, you rock. What a balanced, thoughtful perspective. Kudos to your parents, and to you and your wife.

Second, to Rachel's point, we need to create cultures where the best interest of the company is recognized to be serving the best interest of its employees. I believe there are companies that try to practice a healthy lifestyle culture.

I am one of those women who did do it all for 19 years before a variety of things made me reconsider my personal mission and step off the corporate track. My children are now healthy and happy young adults who I cherish, and though I would change a few moments, I wouldn't trade a day of the times we had when I was working full time. I could explain some of the skills I developed to make it work for me personally (if anyone is interested, just ask me!), but I think the important issue raised here is beyond the individual coping skills of a family and begs consideration of a systemic corporate shift to a model that makes it possible for everyone to fully engage. Conversations like this keep the need for new models at the top of corporate thinking. Thank you for that Rachel. Keep asking these questions, please!!

[Rachel Happe]

Mimi - thanks for the comment. I think the only real solution to this issue is to keep talking, listening to each other, and trusting each other. Ultimately companies need to figure out how to be more flexible in all sorts of different ways - that is really the kernel of what it means to be 'social' as it allows for human variability.

[Rachel Happe]

I just saw this survey from Harvard Business Review if you would like to add your thoughts on this topic: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/01/survey_why_dont_more_women_rise.html

The caveat, it is for people is large organizations.

[Janet Fouts]

The tools available now for distance workers has radically changed the ability for families to juggle kids and work more effectively. In many states (not just Cal) it is difficult or impossible for a single earner household to own a home, so both parents have to work.

We both have home offices and although we do go to an office for meetings we've found this allows us the freedom to not dump our child in daycare and still run successful businesses.

I know other families who do this by juggling meetings and soccer games between them too. It doesn't have to be the woman's job to stay home and take care of the kids anymore.

As companies recognize this flexibility both makes for a happier workforce and reduces overhead it will enable us to work without that traditional guilt bearing down on us.

[Josephslima]

Hi Rachel,
Great post. I have been struggling with these very same questions for months now with no clear resolution. It was nice to read what I have been thinking about. Look forward to the day when I find the right work environment that supports my desire to spend as much time as possible with my kids.

Thanks,

[Rachel Happe]

Hi Janet -

Thanks for stopping by and commenting - I too believe working from home gives people a huge leg up on juggling work and family life. One issue I do have with it is that it is very hard to be in management and work from home - and that cuts off career mobility. I think it also creates other trade-offs - for me it is isolating and for friends who are working mothers who do this it creates a constant sense of trade-off (do I answer the phone or attend my crying child). So, yes - a big step toward flexibility but it doesn't come without trade-offs.

Joseph - thanks for stopping by and commenting. I think I'm exactly where you are... not seeing any clear solution, just a lot of on-going complexity.