Straight Story: Balance work-life needs
Economics Editor Chris Farrell says former General Electric CEO Jack Welch's contention that women can't succeed in business without sacrificing family life is nonsense. He says more family-friendly policies are needed in business.
Economics editor Chris Farrell (American Public Media)
More on Straight Story, Commentaries
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
TESS VIGELAND: Jack Welch stepped into the so-called "Mommy Wars" recently. At a human resources conference, the former head of General Electric said there is no such thing as work-life balance; there are work-life choices.
Many women can have a family and a career, he said. But by taking time off to raise children, their chances of rising to the top of their chosen profession get smaller.
In this week's Straight Story, economics editor Chris Farrell offers his take on the debate.
Chris Farrell: To be fair, we all have to make trade-offs. Economists are fond of saying, "There is no free lunch." Or as Mick Jagger, lead singer of the Rolling Stones and a former student at the London School of Economics, put it:
Rolling Stones: You can't always get what you want....
Jagger's right: You simply can't get around trade-offs. And anyone with the ambition and the drive to try to become a great artist, a famous writer and, yes, a CEO, makes sacrifices. Thanks for the reminder, Jack.
But then why inject gender into the equation? He implied that women could not succeed in business -- let alone make it into the executive suite -- without sacrificing family. And that's where I think he's spouting nonsense.
For one thing, the list of women who are rising to the top of their chosen field, and manage to have families, is long and growing. Take the experience of Ursula Burns. At Xerox, she recently became the first African-American woman to lead a major U.S. corporation. And she succeeded a woman. Both women are also mothers.
Senior management at Xerox was early and strong in its commitment to diversity over the past several decades. For instance, senior leadership evaluated managers on their ability to recruit and mentor underrepresented groups. And their earnings and promotions prospects took a hit if they fell short.
Today, one-third of the company's executives are women. But corporate initiative, no matter how impressive, isn't enough. What about changing the rules for climbing the corporate ladder on an economy-wide scale? Imagine how it would affect the trade-offs young adults face -- both men and women -- if we had equal pay for equal work, high-quality day care and good after-school programs.
The impact of family friendly policies like these would be dramatic. We'd end up with more competition from women for the leadership ranks of society. We'd also have better family values.
Sounds good to me.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Durham, NC, 07/24/2009
At 63 years of age, after more than 40 years of working at multinational corporations, small businesses and owning my own business, as a news reporter, as a married father and as a single parent, I’ve concluded that “achievement” or “success” or “accomplishment” are so relative, and so subjective and personal, that the terms are virtually irrelevant. After all is said and done, isn’t the outcome based not on gender, but on whether mine is a good life, whether I’m content or actualized and have established a legacy that reflects worthy values? The gap is in the sad, mindless platitudes that we use to define success – job title, net worth determined by dollars, auras of power over others. Every day I deal with people my age working 12 or more hours in executive positions with personal lives that are train wrecks. So far, in fact, I know none of that ilk who don’t personify that outcome -- though I remain hopeful that I just haven’t yet found the true exception. Sometimes one seems to emerge in a media profile, only to burn out like a Bernie Madoff in the harsh light of reality. I’ve seen accomplished people – men and women -- who are business or political or social dynamos but who, if given the time and/or capability for reflection, would privately trade it in a heartbeat for a more “normal” life. I’ve seen men and women of intelligence, conscience and ethical prowess being overlooked because they leave the office after eight or nine hours to share life with their families or pursue other aspirations. Bottom line: we each need to get a life. Stare into our navels, decide what that really means, and go for it. Nothing more, nothing less. Man or woman. And in the end, if what we’re after doesn’t somehow benefit the world outside our skin (family, friends, society), we need to stare again.
From Bothell, WA, 07/20/2009
I don't think that Mr. Farrell really gives a good answer to the question of why enterprises should be in the business of judging what employees do outside of work, and supporting some choices over others. Of all of the time-consuming non-work activities that people decide to engage in, why is raising children more important than maintaining a garden? Why shouldn't employers be pressed to ensure that ALL employees have ample free time to, to do with as they see fit? The idea that children, above anything else, are so important that employers should share the cost of raising them with employees sound may (and I stress "may") sound good to parents, but it seems almost calculated to make non-parents into second-class citizens. Removing child-rearing from the list of work-life choices, so that we can claim that we support the nebulous concept of family values may be all well and good, but it doesn't answer why we shouldn't ascribe the same value to those without "families."
P.S.: Why DO we use "family" as a euphemism for "children" anyway?
From Bothell, WA, 07/20/2009
I don't think that Mr. Farrell really gives a good answer to the question of why enterprises should be in the business of judging what employees do outside of work, and supporting some choices over others. Of all of the time-consuming non-work activities that people decide to engage in, why is raising children more important than maintaining a garden? Why shouldn't employers be pressed to ensure that ALL employees have ample free time to, to do with as they see fit? The idea that children, above anything else, are so important that employers should share the cost of raising them with employees sound may (and I stress "may") sound good to parents, but it seems almost calculated to make non-parents into second-class citizens. Removing child-rearing from the list of work-life choices, so that we can claim that we support the nebulous concept of family values may be all well and good, but it doesn't answer why we shouldn't ascribe the same value to those without "families."
P.S.: Why do we use "family" as a euphemism for "children" anyway?
From Eagan, 07/20/2009
Jack Welch belongs to a generation where dad was the breadwinner and mom's wage was secondary. Of course this only applies to affluent families -- in poor families - everyone works. This is still the case today.
Aditionally, women in the workplace has more to do with economics than feminism. More demand for labor meant more jobs had to be worked by women. We are reaping the rewards of a strong economy supported by men and women of a well educated, skilled work force. These rewards come in the form of a strong military, the rule of law, and good health. Work is not a choice unless as citizens we are willing to pay the economic price. Having children is not a choice unless our citizens are prepared to end the species in which case our final years are going to be pretty darn lonely.
From Seattle, WA, 07/20/2009
As long as this debate focuses only on women as the half of a couple who is supposed to care about time with children, we will have problems with equality in the workplace. If we really look at what is implied here, men have been "sacrificing family" for generations." But the assumption is that men have no interest in more time with family if they want to climb the corporate ladder nor should they need to. This is a problem that needs to be attacked from both ends; how about more paternity leave and wider acceptance of men who stay home to raise kids or choose to work 30 hour weeks or prioritize a workplace with child care.
From College Park, MD, 07/19/2009
When you put Xerox on a pedestal for its inclusion of women in the top executive ranks, shouldn't you take a look at their corporate performance? The women you profile are "successful" in term of their personal careers, but what do investors think of the company that they run? Well, since January 1999, the DJIA is down about 5%, the Nasdaq 15%, and the S&P 23%. What about Xerox? Xerox stock has lost 89% of its share value. [I selected this time span purely because it's the longest span that my on-line stock research tool allowed. Jan 1999 predates the dot-com boom and bust, by the way.] Xerox may value diversity, but the market doesn't value Xerox.
From Anadarko, OK, 07/19/2009
Let the parents take care of their own children and let the day-care worker go out and get a real job. Now that is "family-friendly". If a mother wants to work and pay someone else to raise her child, then that is for her to decide, but don't get the government and taxpayers involved in this. It is not other's responsibility. Government coercion cannot be called 'family-friendly" policy.
From Peoria, IL, 07/19/2009
I appreciate Chris’ thoughtful commentary. However, I believe Chris misses the point.
Jack Welch has previously made an issue of “work life balance” for both men and women. Jack’s point is for those who rise to the “top of their chosen profession”, and is not to be confused with the majority of men and women in the workplace who balance both family and career. The demands of top professionals, both men and women, require incredible sacrifice of personal and family time. Anything less, and employees, shareholders or other stakeholders would demand someone who is equally capable AND willing to sacrifice.
In addition, Chris has confused “having a family” with “raising a family”. The act of “having a family” is purely biological, and takes only a moment (men) or 9 months (women). The act “raising a family” implies a much higher investment of time and commitment for both men and women. To claim Ursula Burns and her predecessor are examples of successfully “raising a family” assumes more than any of us know.
From Lake Park, NC, 07/18/2009
I tend to agree more with Jack Welch than with Chris. We all make choices in our lives. We all understand that if you take more time than your maternity leave to raise your family, you won't be returning to work with the same qualifications as someone that has never left the work place, man or woman. All women can have families, that is not the issue. The issue is commitment to work or your commitment to your home life. How long did Ursula Burns stay home with her children? That was not mentioned in the broadcast. I would be hard pressed to assume, without actually hearing his speech, that Welch said women simply can NOT have children and succeed in corporate America. It is the women that CHOOSE to continue working outside of the home that have a better shot at making it to the executive suites. I do also agree with making larger businesses more family friendly. Take SASS for instance, It is the most desired place in America to work. Jim Goodnight is ahead of the curve in what all large businesses should offer its employees. I don't think this debate will ever come to an end, but I do hope in the future we see more businesses making better family friendly policies.
From Alexandria, VA, 07/18/2009
The work-life balance choice is only a "choice" and issue for affluent, professional, educated women. The rest just struggle to provide essentials, grit their teeth against sub-standard childcare for which they may pay a preponderance of their income, and pray that their children are safe and nurtured. Beyond these class-based considerations, having all adults in the workforce means there's no one home at 3 pm to be with kids, create communities, make homes, cook decent food. The cost that we as a society have paid for the success of feminism in the work place falls primarily on the backs of children. The affluent children I know of families where both parents work are lonely, angry, confused, and needy. The children of poor families I know are lonely, angry, confused and angry. The way we do things is not working. Governance should make it possible for a parent to be at home. Our socio-economic realities disallow this. We pay for it in high school drop out rates, high rates of violence, especially domestic violence, emergency costs, law enforcement costs, etc. It would be a wiser use of money, to sculpt public policies and monetary policy to allow a parent to be at home. Their absence has cost us a sense of community, the ability to get along with each, enjoyment in simple pleasures, and created rampant consumerism; buying things to fill the void in our hearts where people and family time should be.
From Milwaukee, WI, 07/18/2009
Thanks, Chris, for your commentary on the work-life balance and the social solutions that are needed if we are going to enact our supposed commitment to "family values". I was really hoping that you would point out the double standard that remains in this arena for men and women. No one presumes that men will have to sacrifice family life if they want to rise to the top in their careers. The assumption of the business world is that men will have a spouse/wife at home caring for the children. The double standard for men and women that remains within this debate is pernicious. Thanks for covering the issue.
From Moorhead, MN, 07/17/2009
I agree with Chris 100%. I think mothers get punished for having a family life, while fathers do not because they're not "expected" by families or by employers to be the primary caregiver for children. I graduated magna cum laude from a prestigious private school and became a single mom one year later. My classmates who showed far less promise than I did are rising to the top, while I feel consistently undervalued, threatened, and overqualified at the $10/hour jobs I'm actually able to get. I was fired for missing SIX DAYS last year to care for me or my daughter when we were sick and occasionally being late because of daycare drop-off problems. What am I supposed to do, hire a nanny so I can be just An Employee, not a mom? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take poverty and parenting any day, and it's the taxpayers' and employers' loss. We need family-friendly policies in place to manage employers and keep workplaces from becoming indentured servitude.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.