Sheryl Sandberg’s book, “Lean In” has recently stirred an interesting debate on whether or not women are working to raise the bar to their best abilities in the leadership realm. The general consensus is yes, there has been progress, but not to the level of acceptance. We’re slowly seeing small spikes in movement in different sectors. Government for one. According to NPR, women are said to be changing the Senate tone and leadership altogether. During last November’s election, the number of females in the U.S. Senate rose to 20, setting a new record. In addition, for the first time in history, women are maintaining an unprecedented number of leadership positions in the Armed Service and the Appropriations and Budget subcommittees.
This isn’t just a conversation we’re having here at home. This is an international topic of conversation. Here is a brief round-up of where professional women stand globally according to a 2013 report by the audit, tax and advisory organization, Grant Thornton:
- 7% of senior corporate leaders in Japan are women
- 19% of senior corporate leaders in the United Kingdom are women
- 20% of senior corporate leaders in the U.S. are women
- 32% of senior corporate leaders in the Botswana are women
- 33% of senior corporate leaders in the Vietnam are women
- 40% of senior corporate leaders in the Estonia are women
- Over 50% of corporate leaders in China are women
Clearly the U.S. is behind. We read about these statistics all the time, but what are we really doing as a country to progress women in the workforce? This recent Seattle Times piece highlighted others’ views on America’s headway when a group of political leaders from South and Central Asia visited the States and “took Americans to task for not having made more progress.” The writer offers, “Good for them. We haven’t lived up to the promise of 1992.”
Erica O’Malley, a partner at Grant Thornton, suggests that our country doesn’t respond well to changing the status quo. “American’s second industrial revolution was fueled by steel, coal, and oil and designed by men. The world has since changed, but cultural norms stick around long after they're relevant, especially given the tendency of people in power to surround themselves with people who think like them.”
In a recent article, Princeton President Shirley M. Tilghman asked professor, Anne-Marie Slaughter (who’s “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” cover story in The Atlantic spurred its own debate), “These issues were basically put on the table 40 years ago. Why are we still having this conversation?” in regards to the feminist movement.
Slaughter’s response, "Because we have not fixed it. We don't have male-female equality and we won't have until we have, what I think of as, the next wave of the revolution. We need the next wave of an equal rights revolution."
It’s all about the mindset. We’re not asking companies to employ women in senior leadership positions because they are women. We simply want to level the playing field; judge them on their work potential, not their gender.
As published by The Huffington Post here.
The media landscape has been covered to saturation with the perceived controversy, societal ills, and limitations of women, specifically mothers, in the workplace. It is clearly a polarizing and subjective topic, and one that breeds frustration for me because I think we’re missing an important part of the perpetual debate that is relevant to a majority of professional women. Sheryl Sandberg tells us to “lean in” if we want to find success. But what if we have leaned in so far we’re about to face-plant? I don’t disagree with the concept as a whole; it’s how I started my career and found early success – as I defined it then. What I didn’t realize was that my notion of success would change significantly as I progressed through many different life stages.
Perhaps we have misdiagnosed the obstacle. Professionally-destined women don’t generally lack ambition. We might not aspire to be a high-ranking CEO, in fact many of us don’t, but we’ve found success and contentment in many other ways. Even if we started out on an executive career track, somewhere along that trajectory we changed our mind and began a quest for more sustainable work life satisfaction. Aghast!
I take absolutely no issue with the notion of encouraging girls and young women to be ambitious and “getting rid of internal barriers.” What many of us are left wanting, though, are the messages for experienced women professionals beginning to see life differently. Ideas like, changing your mind is okay. Career and life realignment is okay. Not reaching the top office is okay. Not working outside the home is okay. It’s actually better than okay, it’s perfectly acceptable and natural.
In fact, most women are content to "lean in" only marginally because they aren’t living to work, rather they are working to live. We don’t all have to fixate or strive to meet the same goals and ambitions. If you want to reach the C-suite, you will likely have to sacrifice family time. If you want to focus on family, you will likely not reach as high of a position professionally. But both of those options are truly commendable.
The solution—and there is one—is to be realistic and okay (there’s that word again) in your own skin. There is no such thing as balance, at least as it is traditionally defined, and no set definition of “having it all.” Allowing work to dictate your life doesn’t buy you anything but stress. The answer to our work-life tug of war lies somewhere in the middle. Here are a couple thoughts …
Know what you’re getting into and know that you can get out. Some jobs are more intense and time-consuming. If that’s what you want, go for it; if you change your mind along the way, that’s fine too. Michael Winerip posits in his NYT article, He Hasn’t Had It All Either, “The core problem isn’t the workplace, it’s work. Those jobs that refuse to be friendly are often the hardest, most time-consuming, most unpredictable, require the most personal sacrifice and, to me, deserve the best compensation and most corporate status. Which does not mean that these are the people whom I admire most or want to spend my time with”.
Recognize when it’s time to make a change. Whether you are thinking about changing to a more manageable career or work environment, taking time off to raise children or care for a loved one, or are ready to ramp up that career again, be clear on your current priorities for any scenario. A life of satisfaction and fulfillment is an evolving objective that shifts as your family, work and pursuits change. By periodically examining what’s important and making the necessary changes, you will remain on a sustainable course.
The middle road is the critical piece of the debate that is being under represented. It is off the mark to constrict the work/life discussion to one view or the other, or one idea, or one course of action. Or to think that once you’ve chosen your path, you can’t alter it to meet new needs and desires. While these ideas may have validity in certain circumstances, times or conditions, any sweeping statements are amiss. We all have different priorities, circumstances and goals, so there are almost as many solutions as there are working adults. Find something that works for you and make adjustments along the way.
By Allison O’Kelly, founder/CEO of Mom Corps, @AllisonOKelly
As published by The Huffington Post here.
I did not see this coming. Workplace flexibility programs being dumped in the name of better productivity and “all hands on deck” agendas? I have to think that the leaders making these decisions aren’t entirely informed. That their pursuit of short-term results is overshadowing their view of enduring success of not just the bottom line, but their most important asset: human capital.
Two particular announcements in the past couple weeks gave way to some head scratching and reactions of a much more pronounced fashion – Yahoo and Best Buy cutting their progressive work programs. While I am not a “Yahoo”, I do take issue with the larger premise that corporate CEOs are viewing alternative work solutions so myopically. Stopping all remote work is not the solution for bringing a company together. Roaming the halls and meeting at the cafeteria aren’t specifically paths to collaboration since an engaged workforce is not about physicality but about appropriate management and empowered communication initiatives.
To say “Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home” seems entirely baseless, as countless workplace studies have proven the opposite. Perhaps the demise of Yahoos being allowed to work from home is a result of little understanding on management's part as to how to get the best work out of employees, regardless of their location. Managing to results and fostering collaboration is a supervisory function. Yes, making time in the office together is a good practice to keep everyone understanding the big picture and new strategic direction, but sweeping mandates like this one are a step backward.
Now, Best Buy seems to be the latest in a rash of, well, seemingly rash decisions to comprehensively cut alternative work programs by announcing the end of its ROWE (Results Only Work Environment) program. For a program that has been lauded and held as an example over the years, Best Buy CEO Hubert Joly made it clear that he never really bought into the idea. Earlier this year, he described ROWE as “fundamentally flawed from a leadership standpoint” in that it effectively assumed the only acceptable way to lead is by delegating.
That’s not the point at all. ROWE is about empowering employees to succeed, not about a style of leadership. This is where uninformed executives who don’t understand programs like these – nor care to learn them – begin to fear lack of control. And when companies like Best Buy and Yahoo are in trouble and turn-around executives are brought in, it’s all about shifting that control. Last November, three months after his appointment, Joly told the press that he intended to restore accountability to the company’s culture. “You need to feel disposable as opposed to indispensable.” There’s the root of poor decision making right there.
The fate of any business is decided by the decision-making ability of its leadership, and every important decision inevitably involves a trade-off. So which trade-offs are acceptable and which are losing propositions? Inevitably, if a company begins to see employee satisfaction, engagement and loyalty as a trade-off, it is not headed in the right direction.
David Ingram wrote that there are five steps to making an ethical business decision. This one in particular seemed relevant:
Consider the effects of your decisions on all stakeholders. Decisions are often made to address one or a small number of issues, such as revenue growth, cost control or client-specific issues, but it is important to realize the wider implications of your decisions on everyone affected. Business decisions made in the best interest of stockholders, for example, can have effects on employees, clients, suppliers, people living and working near your operations, the natural environment and even future generations of people. Consider how stakeholders will be affected if the decision turns out the way you plan, and how they will be affected if things go wrong.
Historically, companies tend to make short-sighted business decisions in tough economic times. I think that's what we are seeing here as organizations work toward solving the wrong problems. The validity of flexible work options has been proven time and again. What I fear these kinds of discussions will do is stall the positive momentum we have around bringing our workforce to modern standards. Do you agree?
By Allison O’Kelly, founder/CEO of Mom Corps, @AllisonOKelly
By Nicole Siokis, President of Mom Corps Atlanta
My friend and former colleague, Randy Hain, has just released his latest book called “Something More: The Professional’s Pursuit of a Meaningful Life.” It is a thoughtful work on the journey that most professionals will arrive at one day where they desire to do something more, rather than simply make a living. Discussing our opinions on the subject over the occasional coffee and sharing a common view on the components that go into a meaningful life, I am honored and pleased to be a part of this book. Finding meaning in what we do is an important topic as we focus on defining what the future of work and family will look like.
As a former Army officer, it has always been my nature to consider the larger perspective and innate design of things around me. After my military career, I worked in Corporate America and for a while was content. I had a rewarding job, loving family and dear friends. And while work was good, it was just something we did as the natural progression of things. I didn’t much consider it beyond that. When my daughter was born a few years later, I began a little soul searching and asked myself questions like, “Who am I?” and “What is truly important to me?”
Here’s an excerpt from Randy’s book that is a Q&A with me in one of the chapters:
What advice would you offer other professionals who may feel trapped in their jobs who are longing to do more, give more and achieve more in life?
“First take time to really find out what is missing in your life and what you want and need to feel more fulfilled (i.e. more volunteer time, more flex time, etc.). Second, seek out role models who do the things you want to do as well. Set up time to meet with people and learn what they do and how they make it work. If what you are looking for requires time away from work, prepare for a discussion with your boss and be prepared to offer alternative solutions based on the research you have done. Many companies are beginning to embrace flex time or volunteer time and do not necessarily expect a trade off in work hours. Unfortunately many employees are not even aware of these options until they ask.”
Nicole, do you believe that pursuing a life filled with meaning and purpose is achievable for everyone? If so, what are the obstacles holding so many people back?
“I do actually. I think fear is the biggest deterrent (‘nobody else has done this so I doubt they would make an exception for me’, is an example of a work related fear). I think it is also very easy for people to get caught up in the day to day and spend very little time reflecting inward. Some of the most successful people I know have developed a personal mission statement and actually schedule time, first thing in the morning or throughout the day, to reflect on the things they have done or plan to do and ask ‘is this contributing to my personal mission statement’? It can be really hard to do, but once it becomes habit, it can keep you focused on the life you want to live.”
I am grateful to be a part of this book and possibly help encourage and inspire those on similar journeys. It is a true labor of love for Randy that reflects his compassionate spirit and sincere desire to support and inspire professionals in their search of a more meaningful life. I think you will enjoy all the insight, ideas and opinions of professionals with a similar quest that can be found on the pages of Something More.
From randyhain.com: “Something More” is ideal for any business person from new college graduate to retiree. The book is accessible, practical, authentic and filled with wisdom. Anyone seeking more out of life than simply their job will find the book helpful, engaging and inspirational.
Snowstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods or a flu epidemic—what do all these things have in common? The potential to stall your business for days or even weeks.
We’ve discussed at length the reasons why a remote work policy is a viable business strategy. Here’s a great article by Ron Thomas at TLNT.com with a refresher as it relates to the recent snowstorm in the Northeast. But what about the roadblocks that are preventing otherwise smart organizations from embracing work alternatives? I covered these points in a blog for Huffington Post, but here I want to focus on the idea of control and the role it plays in preventing us from embracing remote work options.
Having “control” over your employees isn’t a good thing. That is a word construed as demoralizing, uninspiring and dispiriting. Equipping them to do their best work is altogether different. Giving employees autonomy means relinquishing control over the minutiae of where, when and how they work. Here is a good piece from Entrepreneur about How to Give Employees Independence Without Losing Control.
As founder and chairman emeritus of Southwest Airlines Herb Kelleher states: “Be there when [employees are] having problems, and stay out of their way when things are going well.” He has a pretty good track record. Recognizing that professionals will likely behave accordingly when given the chance, we give them room to breathe … and succeed.
Personally, I struggled with the idea of how to “control” my team when I started Mom Corps. I assumed that is what I would need to do as head of an entirely remote workforce. I’m as big an advocate for flexibility as anyone, but I was still nervous. That was in 2005. What changed? Shifting my attitude of control to accountability. I can’t say it has worked all the time. Some hires didn’t function well in this environment, but in all, we’ve been highly successful and learned best practices along the way.
Understandably a 100% remote work environment isn’t possible or even right for most organizations. But the collective we don’t lose anything by introducing a policy that allows for the occasional remote workday. By having the infrastructure in place, the company isn’t completely immobilized when employees literally can’t dig their way out of their driveways to make it to the office thanks to a pop-up blizzard. Major weather events aren’t a regular occurrence? Agreed. But think about all the other life events that take place over the course of a week or month throughout your workforce and how productivity rates go up by making accommodations for working remotely sometimes.
A recent study showed that the average cost of absenteeism for a company of 150 employees is $208,000 per year. So if implementing a remote policy decreased absenteeism by as much as 17.5%, it could save a company $36,400 per year.
I can’t help but wonder—when will companies catch on? Allowing professionals to work remotely from time to time just makes sense. And sometimes, it’s our only option. Just remember, in the case of managing a smart workforce, you have to give up a little control to gain accountability.
Have stories to share about giving up control? I would love to hear them.
As published by The Huffington Post here.
Sometimes I think we read about and discuss workforce trends and challenges through a myopic lens. For example, a company is launching a particular initiative which may serve as an interesting anecdote, but doesn't address the issue at large or the way the issue is perceived by the general population. By expanding the scope of a challenge, we can often identify better solutions.
This week, Leslie Kwoh of the Wall Street Journal wrote this piece about McKinsey and the other big consulting firms and their endeavors to recruit "mothers who left the fold." It is interesting if perhaps lacking in some detail, but it just strikes me as such a small part of the issue of professionals returning to work and having conditions available so they don't leave in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I follow Leslie's great writing regularly on workplace issues and working mothers in particular. I just don't think she was given much to work with here.
Points like "staying in touch with female alumni" and focusing "heavily on recruiting and retaining women" are nice, but really worthy of mention? How about instead sharing information on their re-entry programs or outreach so that we may all push forward best practices for the common good. Or what of the bit about having "more than 100 women" return to the firm over the last 13 years, most (not all) of them mothers? Again, good to note, but where does this fall in line with the company's employment of and the retention or attrition of women who become mothers during their tenure? Surely they have ascertained something interesting to share from their program ... or is it really smoke and mirrors? Have they pushed the needle forward?
The fact that Big Consulting wants to open the doors for professional mothers to return is not surprising. It is the right path as part of a larger talent strategy. These women have proven themselves and, assuming they haven't been out of the workplace for many years, can likely ramp up fairly quickly. But companies, just like working mothers, need to be honest about what they are coming back to. Like it or not, things have changed and priorities have shifted.
I'm well aware that high-level consulting and executive leadership don't mesh easily with professional women who are also moms. Equipped with a Harvard MBA, I started with one of the Big Four accounting firms, then transitioned to management at a global retailer. Soon after, I had children. I found myself unsatisfied with the results of trying to do both my job and my parenting to perfection. And, more importantly the sheer fact that working flexibly made people doubt my ambition and commitment even though I was probably working harder than many of my colleagues. So I started consulting and eventually started a company that specifically addresses the need and desire for professional mothers to get back to work, and helping companies tap into this talent pool in a way that works for both parties.
But I continue to voice that a return to the workforce and how we structure the workplace is not just about working mothers. Professional men who have been out of the workforce due to recession layoffs, stay-at-home dads making their own professional come-back, veterans back from deployment, returning retirees worth their weight in industry intelligence gold, are also looking for employment after time out of the workforce. Many of the same re-entry issues apply to them as well as working mothers. Phase back programs, flexibility options, skills training, and mentor relationships are applicable to anyone returning to work. By broadening the conversation, we can work through best practices to a larger degree and see more significant end results.
We might also get away from the thinking that this is a "mommy issue" and actually make changes that will positively impact professionals and their employers. I don't believe Anne-Marie Slaughter's mantra of "you can't have it all," or Rosabeth Moss Kantor's running a family doesn't help you in business, or the Carol Fishman Cohen idea of internships for proven professionals. We need to realize that it can work, and it does work when companies embrace a few small changes. As Cali Yost would say, companies can "Tweak it" too. We need to stop being so dramatic and just start making changes that are possible for today and for our future.
As organizations, we benefit by spending time and resources on initiatives that move our businesses forward. By adjusting our position on outdated work models, we alleviate the very real and hidden costs of employee turnover, and succeed in not only attracting but retaining top talent through their various life stages. Employees aren't sticking around for the Rolex or gold-plated Timex at 65 these days, but they will be loyal to the company that understands and attends to their personal as well as professional aspirations.
I appreciate Leslie Kwoh's reporting on the issue and have high regard for her insight; from here I think we have a very tangible opportunity to build upon her findings and work towards solutions.
By Allison O’Kelly, founder/CEO of Mom Corps, @AllisonOKelly
As published by The Huffington Post here.
In late 2012, in response to President Obama's election victory speech, I posted here about the importance of the President demonstrating initiative in prioritizing flexibility and work-life alignment for all during this second presidential term. In recent weeks, the President and the topic have crossed paths once again in the headlines, this time in a more acerbic way.
In this January's Politico article, authors Jennifer Epstein and Glenn Thrush make an "irritable" synopsis of POTUS' operation of his work and family life, and according to the opinion of the authors, the end result is negligence of the promises he made to the city he currently calls home: Washington, D.C..
After reading the article, I must say that I identify with and agree far more strongly with this contrarian viewpoint from Forbes contributor David Shaywitz. Shaywitz praises President Obama's dedication to his family and natural inclination to "turn inward." He points out that by arriving home in time for dinner, coaching his daughter's basketball team and being present for their parent-teacher conferences, Obama is proving that work-life alignment is indeed indispensable.
Shaywitz responds with enthusiasm that the President puts family first -- something that isn't covered often enough in the doom-and-gloom news landscape. The best leaders lead by example, not by words alone. Thus, the President is showing the American workforce that work/life alignment, even in the most stressful of jobs, is necessary to our overall well-being.
Adding to the Politico piece, I do take issue with the context in which Epstein and Thrush present the idea that "Obama's natural inclination is to turn inward, toward his family." How do you measure something like that from someone who spends most of his waking hours in the public eye? In my view, conversations like these seem to magnify what we've seen time and again, when a parent's perceived professional shortcomings are joined somehow with their personal decision emphasize family. While chronic absenteeism may be a root cause of failings at work, generally speaking, a parent who takes care of his or her family is not an inherent problem. If President Obama wasn't a parent, where would criticism lay in regards to his personal life? Somewhere, I imagine, but the points presented here just don't seem to hold water.
Where did we diverge the paths of success and fulfillment in life when it comes to work and family? Perhaps we are just in that awkward stage where one piece (our personal lives) has evolved past the other (our work lives), and the latter has to catch up with the times. Aligning all those aspects without feeling guilty about one or the other at times is a difficult and continual journey. Making sacrifices for the betterment of the big picture is part of life today. We're going faster and doing more every day, all day. But I'd venture to guess that a large portion of us are pretty thrilled overall with our performance as both parents and professionals.
Parents will always encounter topics and issues from a different perspective than non-parents. That is to be expected. But we're finding that these differences have less and less of a place at work. Professionals across the country and the world, really, are considering how they work differently for all kinds of motives. It's not just for carpool reasons that people have obligations away from work. Companies are slowly mirroring these trends and preferences. Wouldn't it make sense that someone like the President of the United States and others in the public eye are also addressing and practicing these same shifts? Being critical of that advancement isn't helpful, especially when something like a focus on family and working in a way that connects it all is such a win-win across the board.
By Allison O’Kelly, founder/CEO of Mom Corps, @AllisonOKelly
As published by The Huffington Post here.
Labels are a way to describe or classify something we might not otherwise know how to connect or correlate. They give people an easy way to compartmentalize various aspects of their lives. But easy isn't always best, and like anything, there are good and bad aspects to labeling. Think about a safety or nutrition label -- generally good things. But labels can also dehumanize and be used in ways that make a topic, item, place, even a person easy to dismiss (there's that word again, easy). Think politics, and high school.
Perception is reality. Often if one is typecast with a label, it is hard to overcome that classification. This can be particularly true in a professional environment. People can get too busy to see or learn something new about a colleague. How you enter a company usually stays with you. You started as the receptionist and 10 years later worked your way to a vice president ... but you started as "the receptionist."
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. What has long been a right of professional passage for college students has hit the media circuit again recently as a job search approach for the "formerly professional" looking to return to work. "Returnships" are a way people can re-enter the workforce after an extended absence, giving them an opportunity to recondition their skill sets, make new contacts, and revive their resume. It also allows companies to try out new talent before committing to a permanent position.
Returnships were recently the conversation in an NBC Today Show interview with Huffington Post's Lisa Belkin and Carol Fishman Cohen in which they discussed the (mostly) pros and cons of the catch phrase-worthy trend. I think it's great. Anytime we can up the dialogue about different ways to get people to work is a win. But I see a notable downside to this particular approach.
While a "40-year-old intern" might play in the media as a memorable catchphrase, is it really benefitting the professionals out there trying to get a foot back in the workforce? Advising people to ask for an internship in an interview has the potential to pigeonhole them unnecessarily down the line. I say unnecessarily because being a "contractor" or "interim" professional is essentially the same arrangement.
Approaching a work opportunity as a contractor versus an intern labels professionals differently -- more high-level and experienced -- in terms of the hiring manager and potential peers. Contractors are professionals. Interns are learning to be one. So why start out at a new company with a label that automatically places you among the more junior rank and file?
I recognize there are the more evolved organizations and people within those organizations to which a position of "intern" would not sway their opinion one way or another, especially as that person proved themselves professionally. But can that be said for everyone? Not likely. If a company needs to fill an immediate stop-gap position, are they going to put a "return" in that position or a contractor? Does the hiring manager want to report the former or the latter into a supervisor?
The long-term success and sustainability of a business rests largely on its human element. Bravo to the organizations looking for creative ways to attract new talent -- especially from the largely untapped and highly-skilled formerly professional pool. Start those professionals off on solid footing with a title that gives them confidence and a better label that follows them the duration of their tenure.
For the professionals out there looking to get back in the workforce, don't let marketing speak take the wind out of your professional sails. Ask for a contract or temporary position if an interview is leading that way. Think twice before taking a job with a loaded title and less pay. Instead, consider volunteering your skills for a non-profit as an alternative. By volunteering with a goal in mind and choosing opportunities that align with career goals, you show prospective employers you are serious about your professional development even while you didn't have a job -- or one that labeled you correctly.
By Allison O’Kelly, founder/CEO of Mom Corps, @AllisonOKelly
For some time now, flexibility has been a trending topic among those interested in human capital strategies. We have access to myriad studies showing benefits for both employers and employees, especially for remote workers. If you know anything about Mom Corps and our philosophies, you’ve heard us discourse about the quantitative benefits of working remotely, including:
- Reduced real estate investment for employers
- Decrease in commuting cost for employees (time and money)
- Low cost recruiting and retention tool for employers
Proponents of workplace flexibility tend to lead with quantitative data like this for a good reason; we balance the “feel-good” with a business reason that justifiably appeals to those who can make flexibility a reality within an organization.
Despite the value of supporting data, I found it refreshing to find a different spin on the topic in a recent Harvard Business Review blog by Scott Edinger. The author boldly takes a more qualitative slant on the positive side of virtual teams. In a survey of investment firm employees, the author found that employees working remotely were more engaged, committed and satisfied with their managers than their co-workers working in the traditional office setting. The findings led to some interesting ideas regarding why these employees felt more connected, despite the distance between manager and co-workers.
It basically boils down to this theory: Leaders of virtual teams have improved their leadership skills to effectively manage geographically dispersed team members. This suggested evolution includes a work culture that promotes regular communication between employees and managers, better use of tools like videoconferencing, and an increase in team-building events. Remote employees reap the benefit of better management and get more satisfaction from their roles.
This is all good stuff. Our team observes a similar “fire in the belly” mentality from flexible professionals every day. We hear success stories about how teleworking or flexible schedules have changed their lives. We see firsthand how individuals accomplish more in a few hours at home than they could in a full day at the office. We know how clearly defined flex work strategies can benefit both employee and employer.
So what is our virtual reality? We are definitely making significant steps in the right direction. Most Fortune 500 companies have a sizeable portion of their employees working virtually in some capacity and this trend is trickling down to small and mid-sized businesses. Some companies, like Plantronics, are even discouraging workers from coming to the office every day. But we haven’t yet reached the critical mass needed to see global change. It’s not because people don’t want the option to work from home. In fact, our Annual Workplace Survey, showed that more than half (53%) of working adults think they would get more work done if they had the ability to work from home occasionally. Is it merely a matter of time, or is there more education that needs to happen among business leaders? Are there still unnecessary obstacles in the way of this positive paradigm?
You can count on this. My team will continue spreading the good word about the boundless benefits of workplace flexibility. As always, we encourage you to share your challenges, solutions and comments here.
As published by The Huffington Post here.
In the first part of this post, I discussed the point that workplace flexibility is worthwhile and sustainable only when both the employer and employee mutually benefit from the program. And that we have a ways to go in removing the tag of “mommy issue” from flexibility. Flexibility is a business strategy engaging the entire workforce and not just a particular employee segment. When we frame flex work options as mom—or family-centered—we risk growing resentment among the rest of our workforce and deflecting the overall benefits alternative work options afford a company.
While becoming more widely available, our next step is to apply flexibility and other progressive work options more broadly across our organizations and employee populations. The process does not have to be overwhelming. Here we share some specific ideas and examples from organizations that have already found success in implementing a program.
Publish an equitable policy.
One educational institution historically known for technological innovation is also taking a progressive stance in the workplace flexibility arena. The MIT Center for Work, Family and Personal Life created “A Guide to Flexibility at MIT” for its managers and employees. The document outlines a fair framework for the MIT employee community at large. Concise guidelines are provided for both employees seeking alternative work arrangements and the managers considering their requests.
For example, the policy states, “All proposals should be treated equitably, regardless of the employee’s reason for requesting flexibility.” MIT has broadened the needs to “personal” rather than “family.” Collaborative initiatives like this send a clear internal message that flexibility is not just a parent issue.
Acknowledge the unique needs of all team members.
Whether you conduct a formal survey or meet informally with associates, it is important to understand the ideal work situation for each individual. Don’t assume that a working parent needs flexibility or that an unmarried Baby Boomer is okay with a traditional work schedule. Likewise, don’t promise changes that might not work for the team overall. Take inventory of what personal influences may or may not affect performance at work.
Engage the entire team.
Once you understand the individual needs of the team, consider the team’s requirements as a whole. Productivity and equitable treatment of all employees must be evaluated before implementing any type of workplace flexibility program. Be transparent and find creative solutions that cover the business essentials without overloading any team members.
At Mom Corps, we manage a group calendar where we include our personal as well as our work appointments. This way we can manage all aspects of our day whether that involves needing to be out for a spouse’s surgery, speaking at an industry conference, leaving town for Spring Break, or being unavailable during a business presentation. We schedule our standing meetings to accommodate the majority, avoiding early or late start times, and Mondays and Fridays. We evaluate the situation quarterly to make sure all team members feel they are being treated equitably, that clients’ needs are being met, and that the business continues to run smoothly. Sometimes decisions are difficult, and as individuals we must make work-life reparations in the name of the business and each other. But we acknowledge that flexibility is in itself an elevated level of teamwork and well worth the effort to perpetuate it.
The concept of work option flexibility can take on many forms. To help ensure effective adoption, organizations should test and implement programs as it makes sense for their particular industry, work structure and overall company culture. Be completely transparent with your workforce. If you are launching a test, for example, be clear on that fact to avoid disastrous morale issues down the line. Also, know that if you broach the subject of flex options, there may be no turning back, so make sure the organization is committed at least in some way.
By Allison O’Kelly, founder/CEO of Mom Corps, @AllisonOKelly