I have many, many issues with Welsh. But I do agree with this - to get to the C level, you'll have to sacrifice. Just like to be a pro ball player, you have to sacrifice. You can't give 100% to your job and have 100% left over for your family. You just can't. And sometimes, those sacrifices work out for people - clearly it did for McKinstry. And sometimes, it leads to a chaotic home life.
But Jack Welsh probably had to sacrifice too -- I'm willing to bet he didn't make it to many ball games when his kids were little, the same way my mom (who did take time off to have kids but jumped back in soon after) was never the Room Mother or the Girl Scout Leader or any of those things.
I really don't think you can become a CEO without giving 100%. And I don't think you can give it 100% without sacrificing something else.
I don't think Stone's suggestion is so terrible... here in the US, anyway, we do work WAY too much. Period. If you want to be pragmatic and heartlessly capitalistic about it, people's productivity drops off *profoundly* somewhere around 35-45 hours of work per week. Sure, people can work tons and tons of hours and get more work done, but in terms of bang for your buck, they passed the sweet spot long ago. So you have lots more hours of shoddy work, instead of fewer hours of high quality work.
All this to say, there's nothing wrong or unfeminist about recognizing that the modern corporate environment needs to change to better accommodate human flourishing. That we think of workaholism as a "choice" frankly only indicates how completely corporate America has managed to rewrite and control the dialogue. It should NOT be a foregone conclusion that business "progress" requires human sacrifice. Working hard and destroying souls are two very different things. I don't see any problem with pointing out that some choices have significant negative social externalities, and for that reason should be eliminated (or, if you want to be more libertarian about it, those choices should be negatively subsidized to account for those externalities).
I guess I'm a bad feminist. I see the solution as three-fold: one, reducing the need to be at the office every. single. day. of. the. year. and two, encouraging a more egalitarian form of parental leave and three, a more egalitarian way of marriage. I don't think that acknowledging that men, too, have tough decisions to make and often aren't able to take parental leave because of societal expectations is a bad thing. I don't think it's belittling feminism. I don't think it's denying feminism. While males have privilege as a group, that privilege often doesn't translate to individual men. Women still get the short end of the stick a lot more than men, yes. But the solution is one that necessarily also includes the working conditions of men. What I'm saying is, I think having more family-friendly work structures is a good idea for everyone, even those without families, as it allows for more flexible work hours, more flexible work positions, and more flexibility period.
I don't even WANT to be CEO and I'm still stressed that taking a few years off to raise kids will keep me out of the workforce forever - unless I plan to fold jeans at Walmart or flip burgers.
I've seen the way HR looks at those gaps in a resume. You see "being a mother" they see "always late for work needs extra days off doesn't show up when the baby is sick distracted during meetings uses company time for personal issues".
@BlondeGrlz: I know what you mean. I lie awake worrying that I am on the "mommy track" without ever intending to be. My work hours were cut 40%, I got knocked up, and meanwhile Mr. Girlleastlikelyto is working up a storm. When this kid is born, guess who's going to be shouldering most of it? Yeah.
Jesus Christ, we just can't win. If we work too hard and put our careers first, we're selfish, cold-hearted bitches. If we stay home with the kids, bake cookies, and go to soccer games we might be able to have a "nice career" but certainly won't get to the top. And we could end up getting screwed over when hubby decides to trade in for version 2.0.
All of this makes me never want to get married or have children.
@Lymed: Ideally, the whole system would get overhauled and there would be less hours of work demanded of us, everyone would get sick leave and health care, etc. I really hope that happens.
I've got two things to say about this:
You know, it is a blaming distraction for anyone to blame bearing children as the reason women don't get promoted. Even if a woman does not have children or doesn't marry, her chances of getting on the C level is very low and on a board, even lower. But it distracts and blames women and puts men like Welch off the hook to get people (men and women) to blame the lack of women on "choices."
Second, what IF a woman devotes a big chunk of her life to getting promoted and does not spend time or as much time on her family as society thinks she should? If she gets promoted, she deserves it. Especially on the top levels, if you devote a ton of time, you deserve it. If you spend hours in the gym, the practice field, hitting the books, etc...you deserve the rewards and if someone can't or won't do that, they don't deserve to the rewards as much as someone who does. Men on the top levels do give up a lot, except society doesn't give them as much crap for it - for hiring nannies and helpers and having a helper wife. But they do give up something for the C level jobs - a good chunk of their lives and being on call 24/7. Not every job should require this, but I don't support the call to "even things out" for those who can't or won't devote themselves for the top jobs. If you do the time and devotion, you should get the prize. At this time, don't forget, don't blame: even women who give up aren't getting an equitable share of the top spots and they'd have us blame this solely on motherhood's choices. And it ain't the case. The childfree women also have an incredibly hard time rising to the top spots. Bias, not time off, is the reason. Let's not be distracted by Welchy.
It seems pretty clear to me that the demands of most workplaces are not conducive to being a parent. Back when men weren't really expected to do much parenting because women stayed home and did it all, that might have worked ok. But now it doesn't. We all need to work less, so we can all parent more. That's the only way we'll achieve equality in the workplace. A few women making it to the top because they have exceptional circumstances isn't going to cut it.
I'm no Jack Welch fan, but he's mostly right. If you want to be a CEO, regardless of whether you're male or female, your career will be the primary focus and that means everything else is secondary. If you're not gunning to be CEO, you have more choices. That's true for both men and women. They may not be perfect choices or great choices, but they do exist.
And making a family-oriented choice may put someone at a disadvantage with others who make a different choice. I'm a first waver and saw that happen to a lot of women. They may not call it the mommy track anymore, but it's still there and in many cases it still doesn't lead to the same place as the non-mommy track. Choice does have consequences. Whether it should is another question, but the reality is that it does.
@rainbrain: What I don't like about this idea is that Jack Welsh did not have to sacrifice having a family. He was able to have his cake and eat it too. He fails to recognize his privilege and that's disgusting and illustrates how self-absorbed he is in this regard.
So, ladies, unless you can get a wife — 'cause, God knows, a husband won't be doing for you what Carolyn Welch did for Jack "
This bothers me. If a woman wants a man who will share equally in parenting responsibilities she should marry a man who believes in that and wants that as well. Part of changing things will be changing the dynamics of our relationships as well. Before a couple has children it shouldn't just be assumed that the woman will take on all the responsibility. If you are carear driven and looking to stay in the workforce as much as possible then maybe it makes sense to have a baby with someone who is willing to take a break from their job. It amazes me how many of my male friends with children tell me that they would love to be home with their kids like I am with mine.
I completely agree and said the same thing. I think when it comes to careers and family, one of those conversations couples need to have is the whole balance between work and family. We all have different lines but if you want to work and need support at home, then it makes sense to seek a partner who understands your desires and ambitions.
In Welch's mind, of course, women can make those decisions in a judgment and consequence-free vacuum — you know, like men do all the time! Because, of course, there's always someone else to take care of those kids and no one to judge you for staying at the office every weekend shooting the shit about sports with the boys.
when i read that, all i thought about was jon gosselin saying at the end of his marriage ""I'm only 32 years old...I don't know what's going to happen" except that what is happening is that you have 8 kids and you're traipsing off with a 22 year old girlfriend - but hey! you're a guy! you're in a consequence-free zone, right? and you're not even a ceo! you're not even away from your kids for "work purposes"..you're just away from them to hang out in the south of france with your twenty-something girlfriend. no biggie.
I think there's nothing wrong with reducing hours-- Americans work too much as it is and making the choice to take fewer hours... Well, it's not really a choice.
Choices are important, but society-wide changes are vital as well.
My grasp of economics may be off, but if we reduce hours worked, wouldn't that necessitate a drop in either take-home income or the number of people in the workforce?
@thegogglesdonothing: my grasp of economics is shit, but I will say that that doesn't seem to be the case in say countries such as Sweden which have more flexible hours. On the other hand they're evil socialists and much smaller than the US so....
@thegogglesdonothing: No, for two reasons. Not everyone is paid hourly, and salaried workers can work well over 40 hours a week. Secondly, hours worked are not necessarily indicative of productivity.
@thegogglesdonothing: It seems like adopting a 30 hour week and/or giving more vacation time but keeping salaries the same would more or less maintain the status quo. Most of the people I know working 40 hours or more a week report having down time and being bored at least occasionally- just think, the time we spend at work on Jezebel could be spent with our families without decreasing our job productivity at all.
@Penny: I was thinking more in terms of how fewer work hours would translate to companies having less money to pay out - so if you're right about the link between hours worked and productivity being weak, that's probably not as much of a concern. On the other hand, I heard that the 35 hour work week caused some big problems for France's economy...
@SylvanSylph: Seriously. The fact that this site is so full of commenters and readers during normal business hours is evidence enough that many workers simply do not need to be at work as much as they do to be productive. Most employers could easily cut workers' hours, keep pay the same and still have the same level of productivity.
"It is doubtful that Welch would be swayed by that argument, however. He calls people who continually struggle with balance: ''work-life moaners.""
Well, it's easy not to moan when you don't give a damn about anything other than work. The article mentions how his first wife, Carolyn, raised his children alone. What a great dad!
07/14/09
But Jack Welsh probably had to sacrifice too -- I'm willing to bet he didn't make it to many ball games when his kids were little, the same way my mom (who did take time off to have kids but jumped back in soon after) was never the Room Mother or the Girl Scout Leader or any of those things.
I really don't think you can become a CEO without giving 100%. And I don't think you can give it 100% without sacrificing something else.
07/14/09
All this to say, there's nothing wrong or unfeminist about recognizing that the modern corporate environment needs to change to better accommodate human flourishing. That we think of workaholism as a "choice" frankly only indicates how completely corporate America has managed to rewrite and control the dialogue. It should NOT be a foregone conclusion that business "progress" requires human sacrifice. Working hard and destroying souls are two very different things. I don't see any problem with pointing out that some choices have significant negative social externalities, and for that reason should be eliminated (or, if you want to be more libertarian about it, those choices should be negatively subsidized to account for those externalities).
07/14/09
07/14/09
I've seen the way HR looks at those gaps in a resume. You see "being a mother" they see "always late for work needs extra days off doesn't show up when the baby is sick distracted during meetings uses company time for personal issues".
07/14/09
07/14/09
All of this makes me never want to get married or have children.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
You know, it is a blaming distraction for anyone to blame bearing children as the reason women don't get promoted. Even if a woman does not have children or doesn't marry, her chances of getting on the C level is very low and on a board, even lower. But it distracts and blames women and puts men like Welch off the hook to get people (men and women) to blame the lack of women on "choices."
Second, what IF a woman devotes a big chunk of her life to getting promoted and does not spend time or as much time on her family as society thinks she should? If she gets promoted, she deserves it. Especially on the top levels, if you devote a ton of time, you deserve it. If you spend hours in the gym, the practice field, hitting the books, etc...you deserve the rewards and if someone can't or won't do that, they don't deserve to the rewards as much as someone who does. Men on the top levels do give up a lot, except society doesn't give them as much crap for it - for hiring nannies and helpers and having a helper wife. But they do give up something for the C level jobs - a good chunk of their lives and being on call 24/7. Not every job should require this, but I don't support the call to "even things out" for those who can't or won't devote themselves for the top jobs. If you do the time and devotion, you should get the prize. At this time, don't forget, don't blame: even women who give up aren't getting an equitable share of the top spots and they'd have us blame this solely on motherhood's choices. And it ain't the case. The childfree women also have an incredibly hard time rising to the top spots. Bias, not time off, is the reason. Let's not be distracted by Welchy.
07/14/09
So in that sense I agree with Stone.
07/14/09
And making a family-oriented choice may put someone at a disadvantage with others who make a different choice. I'm a first waver and saw that happen to a lot of women. They may not call it the mommy track anymore, but it's still there and in many cases it still doesn't lead to the same place as the non-mommy track. Choice does have consequences. Whether it should is another question, but the reality is that it does.
07/14/09
07/14/09
This bothers me. If a woman wants a man who will share equally in parenting responsibilities she should marry a man who believes in that and wants that as well. Part of changing things will be changing the dynamics of our relationships as well. Before a couple has children it shouldn't just be assumed that the woman will take on all the responsibility. If you are carear driven and looking to stay in the workforce as much as possible then maybe it makes sense to have a baby with someone who is willing to take a break from their job. It amazes me how many of my male friends with children tell me that they would love to be home with their kids like I am with mine.
07/14/09
I completely agree and said the same thing. I think when it comes to careers and family, one of those conversations couples need to have is the whole balance between work and family. We all have different lines but if you want to work and need support at home, then it makes sense to seek a partner who understands your desires and ambitions.
07/14/09
07/14/09
when i read that, all i thought about was jon gosselin saying at the end of his marriage ""I'm only 32 years old...I don't know what's going to happen" except that what is happening is that you have 8 kids and you're traipsing off with a 22 year old girlfriend - but hey! you're a guy! you're in a consequence-free zone, right? and you're not even a ceo! you're not even away from your kids for "work purposes"..you're just away from them to hang out in the south of france with your twenty-something girlfriend. no biggie.
07/14/09
07/14/09
Choices are important, but society-wide changes are vital as well.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
"It is doubtful that Welch would be swayed by that argument, however. He calls people who continually struggle with balance: ''work-life moaners.""
Well, it's easy not to moan when you don't give a damn about anything other than work. The article mentions how his first wife, Carolyn, raised his children alone. What a great dad!