Life Meets Work Blog

A new book suggests women can have it all, simply by deciding they have enough.  That’s the thesis behind the recently released “Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules for Success,” by Claire Shipman, senior national correspondent for ABC News’ “Good Morning America” and Katty Kay, Washington correspondent and anchor for “BBC World News America.”

The book includes specific strategies to negotiate a flexible work schedule and examples of what happens when companies get past face-time-management and start focusing on results.

The title, however, is unfortunate.  ‘Womenomics’ suggests that these career / life issues are merely women’s issues, read: mothers’ issues.  This an inaccurate representation, shifting a disproportionate responsibility onto women’s shoulders.

Career / life balance is a personal issue that affects men just as much as women.  Moreover, it’s not just a family issue anymore.  This is not just about moms or dads, but also young professionals and creative thinkers who know that productivity is not confined to artificially lit, sterile offices.

This is an issue for anyone who knows that results don’t require regimented 8 hour work days, and that 60-hour work weeks can likewise be detrimental to long-term performance.

This is an issue for everyone who knows that driving 30 minutes to sit in an office and talk on the phone to someone else who drove 30 minutes to sit in an office and talk on the phone is just plain wasteful.

This is an issue for everyone who sits at a desk at 3:30 thinking, ‘I’m beat, but I can’t leave yet. What kind of busy work can I do until 5:00?”

Shipman and Kay admit it’s not just a women’s issue, but clearly they’re approaching the issue from a feminine perspective. (They make gender generalizations like “women tend to be self-deprecating” and “women tend to be perfectionists.”)  Yes, they’re honest and real and relevant to a lot of people.  But perhaps they miss the bigger picture.

Titles like these diminish the issue, assign blame, and give people an excuse to shut it out.  Titles like these are inaccurate and unnecessary.  Titles like these are no way to open minds and lead change.

Posted by Jaime

There’s a cost to taking time off of work.

First the obvious. You don’t get paid when you don’t work. (That’s the general rule, anyway.)

Next, there’s the impact on your social security benefits or pension.

Often, there’s the loss of an incremental salary bump, compounded over future years.

And for too many, there’s an irrevocable impact on a career—an up-or-out philosophy that suggests anyone who isn’t consistently moving forward isn’t destined for the top.

Now two well respected Harvard researchers have quantified the impact of a career hiatus. Surveying Harvard College alumni, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz calculated the financial penalty for someone who takes a 18 months off of work and found…it depends on what you do.

Earnings loss, per degree:

• Medical doctors – 16%
• BA’s – 25%
• Ph.D’s – 29%
• Lawyers – 29%
• MBAs – 41%

Clearly something is going on with those MBA’s.  As the New York Times suggests, the size of financial loss “suggests that time off puts them on a completely different career track.”

Not long ago, well-educated Harvard women were criticized for taking time away from work—“wasting” brains and education that were needed in the marketplace. Yet the study suggests that these women (or men, for that matter) aren’t valued in the workplace. How could they be, when they are so permanently and drastically punished merely for stepping back a bit?

Can we surmise that to be an MBA (characterized as accountants and financial types in the NYT) is simply incompatible with family?

Members of a newly formed White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families held their first meeting on February 27.

The task force, chaired by Vice President Joel Biden, is charged with no small task—that of improving quality of life for America’s middle class. Specifically that goal includes the following:

•    Expanding education and lifelong training opportunities
•    Improving work and family balance
•    Restoring labor standards, including workplace safety
•    Helping to protect middle-class and working-family incomes
•    Protecting retirement security

In its first session, the task force focused on “green jobs” as a pathway to a stronger middle class. A White House blog for the task force suggests that these green jobs will be created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

In the abstract, green jobs are positions that “provide products and services that use renewable energy resources, reduce pollution, and conserve energy and natural resources.” Specific examples include energy auditors, weatherization experts, green builders, all sorts of electrical and solar and fuel engineers, as well as admin and sales staff to support green product manufactures.

Reportedly, green jobs pay 10 to 20 percent more than other like-positions.

For more on the White House task force, including the “green jobs” meeting, visit www.AStrongMiddleClass.gov.

Posted by Jaime

President Obama signed his first bill today—the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Ledbetter worked as a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber for nearly two decades.  In 1998, someone left an anonymous note in her mailbox, alerting her to a wage disparity.

As reported on NPR, all 16 men who did her job earned more, including a relative newcomer who earned $6000 more than the well-tenured Lettbetter.

She filed a EEOC complaint and won the maximum allowable damages of $360,000.  Goodyear appealed and the Supreme Court overturned the award, interpreting the law to indicate that discrimination complaints must be filed within 180 days of the initial discrimination decision.

Congress made a failed attempt to adjust the law in 2007.  Opposition suggests the revision will encourage unfounded lawsuits.  As NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said, Ledbetter was upset by such criticism and noted the law still “caps damages at $300,000, limits back pay to two years, and does nothing to fix the effects of unequal pay on pensions and social security.”

For more: Video and transcript of the signing ceremony and President Obama’s comments today.

Posted by Jaime

The House is scheduled to vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act today, January 9.

Earlier this week, lobbyists encouraged their constituents to contact their representatives for and against this bill.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) says the bills go too far.  Here’s an excerpt from their action alert:

The Paycheck Fairness Act would limit an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different locations with different costs of living. Second, the bill would lift the caps on compensatory or punitive damages for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay.  These damage penalties would apply to even unintentional pay disparities.

MomsRising, however, argues the Paycheck Fairness Act provides long-overdue equitable protection for women.  From their action letter:

The Paycheck Fairness Act would deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes in the law and barring retaliation against workers who disclose their wages.  The bill strengthens the Equal Pay Act to ensure that it provides effective protection against sex-based pay discrimination.  Toward that end, it also allows women to receive the same remedies for pay discrimination that are currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race and national origin.

Can you see the legitimacy of both arguments?

Posted by Jaime

In Bulletproof Your Job, author Viscusi suggests arriving at work early and leaving late. Not too early or too late, mind you—just five or ten minutes before and after your boss. After all, he writes, “much of what you need to do is create a perception that makes you more visible.”

Is he channeling George Costanza? (Seinfeld, season 7, episode 12)

Without increased productivity, such subterfuge will become apparent. Managers don’t want to be manipulated. Cut out the smoke and mirrors and focus on the work.

Ethics count.

Posted by Jaime

It goes without saying that you should be adding value at work. Unlike Viscusi who seems to believe that facetime = merit, it is those employees who contribute meaningfully to the bottom line who’ll be asked to stay.

Whatever your role, look for ways to quantify your results. Did you add 10 new customers last month, cut supply costs by 15%, or negotiate a new supplier discount? Measure your results, not your time. Demonstrate a results-oriented work style and you’ll earn lasting favor. Plus, you’ll have quality resume fodder in case new job interests come along.

Read about results-based job descriptions at the Life Meets Work main site.

Posted by Jaime

“You must understand your job is your most valuable asset, and your primary objective is to protect it,” Viscusi writes. And in a nod to Sun Tsu…”Work is war.”

When work becomes a battlefield and the primary objective is self-preservation, everyone suffers—including your employer. As competition increases, productivity decreases. As cooperation disappears, so does creativity as well as the valuable internal vetting that comes from debating and evaluating new ideas.

Ignore Viscusi. Be generous with the knowledge and information you have. Share contacts, new ideas, and resources. You can’t build a network without cooperation and you can’t build a career without a network.

Posted by Jaime

Attend seminars, keep up with market press, read the top bloggers in your industry, and try out the latest technologies. Smart, well-informed employees are always an asset. Even if your current employer can’t keep you, you’ll be well positioned for another opportunity.

Set yourself some goals (like these, for example):

• Find four industry blogs to visit daily and try to comment on at least one every week. You develop critical thinking skills when you process a post and respond with a relevant opinion.
• Subscribe to one print publication and set aside time to read it. Keep some reading material in the car and plan to arrive at meetings 5-10 minutes early. You’ll always be on time and you’ll have industry news top-of-mind.
• If you don’t already IM and text, find someone to communicate with—for the sake of learning.
• Get a page on LinkedIn, and try out Facebook and Twitter.

Make a habit of continuing education. If you are informed and capable, you’ll not only survive—you’ll thrive.

Posted by Jaime

With collapse in our financial sector and jobs on the line, some large name media outlets felt it was appropriate to give Stephen Viscusi’s new book Bulletproof Your Job some valuable press space.

Viscusi offers four rules for weathering a touch economy at work: Be Visible, Be Easy, Be Useful, Be Ready. Admittedly, there’s merit in many of Viscusi’s suggestions, such as be a mentor, dress well, and build your network.

Those are well and good, but unfortunately Viscusi peppers his book with reckless throwback suggestions like these:

“Don’t stay late, just stay later. Leaving a mere ten minutes after your boss has gone reinforces the impression that you’re the world’s most committed employee.”

“It doesn’t matter if your company pays for your health club membership or even provides an on-site health facility—that’s to make it look good, not to help you lower your cholesterol… admire those perks, brag about them to your friends, but don’t get caught using them.”

Apparently Viscusi doesn’t believe that having a good opinion of your employer or respect for your managers will get you anywhere. And the idea that companies offer wellness programs simply for PR purposes shows a concerning lack of corporate insight.

Viscusi provides some short-sighted suggestions to save a job. We wonder, though, whether some of his recommendations could do more harm than good.

In the next few posts, we’ll respond to more of Viscusi’s advice and offer suggestions to bulletproof your career.

Posted by Jaime