Since a picture’s worth a thousand words this blog post can be short. Take a look at this chart from the US Department of Health and Human Services website:
Many, many American women to the tune of 10’s of millions are today working full-time while caring for their children under 18. This number has increased nearly 50% in the last 40 years.
The attention drawn by the Anne Marie Slaughter piece and others are distracting people from this reality. Most mothers “have it all”, not a mythical idealized “all” but a sleeplessly busy “all” of full-time work as a key breadwinner for the family and loving care of their children. For many the work is fulfilling and enjoyable, for some it isn’t, just as it ranges for men.
Don’t be fooled by Atlantic headlines or even perhaps your social circle. The question is not if but how. And that’s where we should focus our energies – not in debating the “if” but in solving the “how”. How can we make sure these parents and families live in a society and community that provides the structure and support needed for their health and happiness.
A recent article in The Atlantic by Anne-Marie Slaughter entitled “Why we Still Can’t Have it All” has garnered considerable attention and controversy on the net. I’ve been meaning to comment – frankly last week was too busy – now that I’m on vacation for a few days I wanted to reflect on this as it’s a topic near and dear to my heart.
The author starts with an example of a work/parenting dilemma that she faces – she is in a very high-powered position which has taken her away from her children, and she’s not living with them during the week. One of the children is going through some normal but stressful adolescent challenges and she is feeling quite torn being far from him. As a result she gives up the “high-power” position for what she considers to be a “non-high powered” position as a tenured professor at Princeton.
The fundamental problem is that she postulates a “have it all” fantasy which implies that life has no limits or tradeoffs. There are no constraints of space nor of time. Of course problems in life occur because these constraints exist. And, by the way, they exist for both men and women.
Tradeoffs exist and choices must be made in all parts of life. We are always making these choices with regards to where we spend our money – home, education, necessities, splurge items, etc. I can’t have it “all” and must make tradeoffs even though I am quite lucky and have all that I need and much that I want. Similarly with food – moderation, balance and a bit of self-discipline are key.
Time is no different – it is not limitless. For women and men who want to have high-powered careers and be an involved parent – especially during the busiest parenting years, that will probably be about it on the big time commitment front. Those two activities are consuming. Personally I didn’t find this a huge loss. My career and children were so rewarding that the clubs and non-profits – while worthwhile – were skipable. Social life also is more limited than for someone who isn’t balancing both family and career.
How high-powered is high-powered enough? Just because being a tenured professor at Princeton is not high-powered enough for Slaughter doesn’t mean that that logic should be applied to all women – I suspect that it would be seen as a pretty awesome level of accomplishment for most. But even if not – maybe it’s a matter of timing. Skills and opportunity aside, I’m not so sure I could have juggled being CEO of SugarSync 15 years ago with 4 young children. That’s ok with me – I’m enjoying doing it now.
What about business travel? That is where the rubber meets the road (or more accurately where the s—t hits the fan) for many working parents. I did find this very challenging – I had international responsibilities for much of my career. In some cases I took the kids. I couldn’t fathom living apart so moved them with me to Brazil. When they were infants I took them with me on business trips. Beyond this my husband and I tried as best to juggle our trips such that we weren’t both gone at the same time and when we were, we were lucky enough that my mother-in-law (expert work/family juggler herself) was able to take care of the kids for us. I know many successful professional women who made medium-term job choices to limit travel. Certain professions (e.g., management consulting) have so much travel baked in that perhaps bigger changes are needed, though I know of many successful management consultant moms who take short term research assignments or focus on local clients.
The point that I hope is coming through here is that much is possible. It takes tradeoffs, some number of years of less than ideal amounts of sleep but, in my opinion, the rewards are worth it. Some situations seem to go beyond what feels like possible. Slaughter’s situation of living apart from a teenager feels impossible to me – I certainly couldn’t do it. I certainly don’t know if there were other solutions she could have explored. Could they all have moved to Washington? That might have worked on the family connection but not for the children’s school – I don’t know.
But what I do know is that for our family that situation is not a gender issue. I cannot imagine my husband being able to live apart from our kids for more than a few months. He did it when we were in Brazil and that was very difficult for our family. I knew when I went there it was not long-term without him. Both my husband and I have been contacted by recruiters about some jobs in LA that would require commuting and being home only on the weekend. We turned them down without much remorse, confident that we could find something we enjoyed close to our children. I do not find that the absence of some extreme choices has overshadowed the many choices and opportunities I’ve had.
None of my views on the above changes my opinion that there are still barriers that should not exist and changes that should be made.
Childcare is a huge issue – both availability and cost. When I started my first job at Informix and Steve was in Law School >50% of our after-tax income went towards childcare. Things were pretty tight! I agree with Slaughter’s point about re-valuing facetime. The work/family juggle is made more doable if you can finish up a project at home after the kids go to bed rather than in the office from 6-8. More women in leadership? I agree with that too (no surprise). Policy and management changes to support this juggle are important to both men and women. I don’t see that as a women’s issue but rather a family issue.
One other place where I take strong issue with Slaughter’s recommendations is around timing. Yes, I think we should take the long view of careers and I recognize that we will likely work longer and that there are differing stages of one’s career where one may be more “pedal to the metal” than others. The one place were we tend to have less flexibility though, is timing of having children. I’ve seen way too many women friends and colleagues who decided to wait, have to put their bodies through a hormonal wringer or, worse, suffer heartbreak and disappointment in not being able to have any or the number of children they want. Partnership or tenure or VP jobs can be done later with perhaps some extra sweat equity. Women’s bodies are simply less flexible on this. Loss of fertility is quite dramatic in the early 30’s – see here and here. If a woman at 32 had a couple of children and was upset that she missed out on some key promotion – I would tell her to redouble her efforts, find a new company, start a company – basically the opportunity is still in front of you. If that same woman at 42 had the plum job but wanted and was unable to have children, the only response would be one of consolation.
I do not believe early motherhood needs to be the death knell of one’s career. At 30 a woman can easily have 40 more years of her career in front of her – lots of opportunity to make up for any lost time. I do object to the focus on youth accomplishments – in part because it puts women in a poor choice situation.
It’s not easy nor as common as I’d like to see, but I don’t think the women who are both mothers and top professionals are, as Slaughter says, only those who are “superhuman, rich, or self-employed.” If they are a top-professional, they may not be rich though they probably can afford good childcare. Self-employment can be a great option but I don’t believe it is the only one. I find that those women who do do both are determined to do both, a bit flexible and while not super-human, very hard working. I believe many women can aspire to this combination.
Several months ago I wrote a post about Performance or Potential. It was a response to a research report finding that women are promoted based on performance, and men based on potential.
I believe we’re seeing a corollary to that type of thinking in a recent NY Times article about Sheryl Sandberg. While a good chunk of the article was positive, the following section had a decidedly negative tone:
“Some say her aim-high message is a bit out of tune. Everyone agrees she is wickedly smart. But she has also been lucky, and has had powerful mentors along the way. After Harvard and Harvard Business School, she quickly rose from a post as an economist at the World Bank to become the chief of staff for Lawrence H. Summers, then the Treasury secretary. After that, she jumped to Google and, in 2008, to Facebook.
She is married to Dave Goldberg, a successful entrepreneur and the C.E.O. of SurveyMonkey, which enables people to create their own Web surveys. She doesn’t exactly have to worry about money. Or child care. (She and her husband have two young children.)
To some, Ms. Sandberg seems to suggest that women should just work harder while failing to acknowledge that most people haven’t had all the advantages that she’s had… ‘“I think she’s had a golden path herself, and perhaps does not more readily understand that the real struggles are not having children or ambition,” Ms. Hewlett continued. “Women are, in fact, fierce in their ambition, but they find that they’re actually derailed by other things, like they don’t have a sponsor in their life that helps them go for it.’”
The Atlantic had a great article that pointed out a double standard – why is luck even brought up here when it is rarely mentioned in similar articles about successful men in business?
In addition to agreeing with the content in theAtlantic article, I started thinking about all those “lucky” women (including me) who also went to Harvard Business School. What has become of them? How many of us are there and what are we doing now?
I went into the HBS alumni directory for my class -‘88 (Sheryl is ‘95) and did a bit of informal research. The class of ‘88 is about 25% women. It’s hard to know exactly but judging by how many list a job in the directory it appears that about half of the women are working outside the home. The next question is how many of that working group have children. This is tricky, as it’s not listed explicitly. For my husband Steve and my two sections (where we know and are in touch with many of the people) it seems to be that approximately half of the “working half” have children.
What can we conclude from this? Well it turns out that the “luck” of going to HBS does not alone make one worth $1.6B while being married with two kids. In fact, and on a very serious note, it is a minority of those lucky HBS attendees that are even in the demographic category of doing what she is doing – working full time while raising young children, not to mention achieving her extraordinary level of success.
Given the fact that so many of the HBS women graduates are not working, I believe the messages she has been delivering at TED and in the Barnard commencement speech are highly relevant to this group. Be proud, be ambitious, stay in the game. I also can’t help but wonder about her point that the successful women are less well-liked then successful men as many of my career-oriented female classmates are not married. We need to work to change this in our society.
Another sore point for me in this NY Times article is the implication that having a high income means that you don’t have to worry about childcare. Of course, the challenge is even greater for the working poor and even middle class but I know of no mother, regardless of income level, who does not worry about childcare. Finding the right childcare, dealing with transitions, worrying if all is ok at home. Managing a high-powered career while parenting young children is simply hard work leaving not a lot of free time or sleep for Sheryl or anyone else. That’s why I believe that changes in business and government policies such as parental leave for both parents are so important. Plus, role modeling, showing working new moms that it can be managed and our children can thrive, is critical as well.
In her Barnard address Sheryl said that our generation of women hasn’t broken through to the CEO level in great enough numbers despite the good fortune of education. The HBS class of 1980 was 20% women and they are at prime CEO age. We certainly do not have 20% penetration in the large company CEO ranks – for instance only 18 of the Fortune 500. What needs to change to increase these numbers? That is a huge topic and inevitably will involve many elements both individual and societal but the suggestions Sheryl makes in her speeches can only help.
I hope I have the humility to appreciate my good fortune and the friends and family who have helped me along the way. I’ve talked about many of those people, in particularly my husband and parents, in this blog. My education was a gift from my parents – I hope they know how much I appreciate it. My husband has truly been a partner in all aspects of my life. SugarSync is a team effort by all of the employees, investors and executive team. But nobody but me walked out the door in the morning and returned to work with a six week old sleeping sweetly at home. Nobody was in my head as I lay awake figuring out how to solve a business problem or woke up with an early alarm to finish a project before getting the kids off to school. I take pride in what I have done to bring SugarSync to the place it is today and will be proud of us achieving even more success in the future. I’m even prouder of my children and the people they are. I hope that the lens through which these accomplishments are viewed will be less biased than the lens trained on Sheryl now.
It is a privilege, and perhaps even lucky, to have professional parents, a great education and generous mentors. What the numbers and common sense show, however, is that what is noteworthy for Sheryl Sandberg and what is deserving of coverage in the NY Times and elsewhere is not her luck, but her hard work, talent, drive and contributions.