Time Crunch: Time to Reevaluate How We Use Time

It’s Back to School, and I, like every other parent, is crunched for time and bowing under the weight of pursuing personal success and supporting success for her children.  Much of it all comes down to Time.

Time for school.  Time for homework.  Time to relax.  Time to get them to bed in time for enough rest.  Time for self-fulfillment, time for self-indulgence (mine are only 6 and 3 years old, after all!).  Time for physical activity.  Time for musical and artistic development or enrichment.  Time for play.  Time for cleaning up and putting away.  Time for reading.  Time for imagination.  Time to talk and question and answer.

That’s a lot of Time for a working professional mother like me who also needs a lot of Time for herself.  Time for work, time for overtime, time for the commute, time for my personal projects, time with my husband, time for sports, time for hobbies, my siblings, my friends?  Time… so much Time that the more I write the word, the less it seems articulate, or even real.

But the repercussions of Time are very real.  According to current social mores, if your child doesn’t start lessons in a particular instrument or sport at a young enough age, the child will probably carry a lag compared to others (unless the child has unusual talent in the domain).  If your child lacks the maturity for certain math problems, the poor grades of the time will negatively impact the child’s record and/or confidence and may be set back from hen as the child will maybe be excluded from the higher math class from then on.  If your child doesn’t excel at standardized tests, there’s a chance that the child won’t be able to stay in that school that has to keep its pass rate high enough to retain funding.  It’s even worse for working parents and, above all, working women who, with or without children, suspected to take away too much Time from her work to care for babies, children, or elders.

Yet, if our society shifted from this standardized, timed success towards a more spherical time in which maturity and naturalness enabled each of us to grow at our own pace and in our own way, we would all be greatly enriched by gifts of maturity and wisdom that life experience carries.  

In the past, I have made the case for incorporating our understanding of quantum physics into our lives, setting up a system that obeys natural maturational processes and qualitative growth instead of always reducing everything to the ticking of measurement and quantification.  In the past, I have argued that we refuse to minimize our lives to a Tayloristic, linear logic of “then and than” and move onto a more quantum, spherical approach to learning and achievement with greater emphasis on accomplishment and growth instead of squelched memorization and graded success.

When we allow ourselves to grow with experience, with scientific method of hypothesis and testing, when we leave time for play and imagination, our children are likely to learn more quickly and fully than when they plug away at hours of homework every night after school.  When we take time to debate and constructively argue, we stand to gain much more knowledge and wisdom than memorizing dates and trivia.  This might not meet the quantified and quantifiable expectations of “then and than” linear time, nor does anyone probably have any Time for it… but it is more likely to build better thinkers.  Children who have sturdier building blocks for learning and retaining their acquired knowledge both at school and during their free time.  Citizens who have  better grasp on how things (objects, systems, relationships) work and therefore a better hold on their own lives and the weight of their vote. 

As a working mother want for Time and worried about her children being able to survive in our “then and than” linear timing and Performance Society, I feel the drag toward ticking away steadily without question, marching to the beat of the drummer as best we can with no slack to ever consider a different tune, a more harmonious rhythm that would enable our societies to start to dream again a dream of progress, improvement, fullness, and sustainable growth.

 And if we mothers don’t have time to help imagine and build a better society, who will?

 It’s time for us to be freed up from the race-time imperative and give time back where we need it most:  debate, quality progress, sustainable growth, critical knowledge.

Talk to you next week for another bite from the apple,

Eve

21st Century Ambitions Should be Multi-Dimensional and Collectively Empowered

It was recently brought to my attention that Deborah Spar, Barnard’s president, wrote a response to Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article, “Why Women Can’t Have It All”.  Spar brought up the point that women should continue to let their ambitions breathe instead of stepping away too soon from the table, as has coined it Sheryl Sandberg, or give up their ambitions before even entering the game out of dread for being unable to have it all and for the anticipated guilt linked to juggling so much.  Spar argues that women deserve to be boosted in their ambitions rather than focus on the perils along the way.

I agree heartily that every individual should have his or her ambitions and be able to pursue them as an individual, his or her own “way”. 

However, I can’t help but notice that, once again, the heavy lot of pursuing one’s ambitions in a somewhat hostile environment is conceptualized as an individual’s plight only:  to make it there where few arrive, at the highest rung, no matter the personal sacrifice, and to make it there alone.

It has often been remarked that the woman’s movement allowed for women to enter the workforce… but only according to men’s conditions and rules; that somehow “she” had to be “a man plus some” to make inroads at all.  And while some women are changing the rules and gaining in clout (remember recent laments of “if only it had been Lehman sisters”), much of this world remains a man’s world.  Within it, individuals’ quest for selfhood and self-fulfillment has obeyed, and continues to obey, the andocentric “hero myth” in which the individual strikes out against all peril (albeit with many helping, expendable hands), kills/seduces the evil woman, all in order to achieve the ultimate prize or goal.  In this hero myth, the individual plays a linear, solitary, all-or-nothing game of singular purpose.  Modern women have taken on this myth for themselves, relieved to finely be free to pursue this hero myth from which they were entirely excluded for so long. 

The problem with this worldview is twofold.  First of all, such a singular purpose is not pertinent to many women (or men).  Second, much must be improved collectively, instead of condemning individual ambitions to being such a solitary struggle. 

1.        A singular purpose is incomplete for many

The hero-myth requires the hero-to-be to reduce his/her life to a single dimensional outlook. 

Yet, human reality and potential are far richer than that.  We are similar to quarks and could gain much by accepting that we are highly sophisticated, multi-dimensional, beings capable of embodying simultaneously multiple purposes and needs.  The tacit societal agreement to limit ourselves to linear paths (with a positive slope) and to singularity of being is neither necessary nor preferable. 

Yet, in the meantime, this worldview has led us down the slippery slope of exclusion.  How can it be that we are actually letting ourselves be convinced collectively that only 2 models exist:  having children or having a career… and that any alternative is symptomatic of inadequacy or symbol of infidelity (not engaged enough as a mother or not engaged enough as an employee).  How can it be that learned, insightful, thoughtful thinkers can follow a track that makes total abstraction of having children, a kind of Brave New World in which some will carry babies and others will think and act, dissociating entirely the stuff of life and some nebulous imperative of “ambitions”?

I’ve mentioned it in a past blog but I think the idea has not received the attention it deserves:  Kathryn Ann Rabuzzi wrote, back in the 1980s, about the need for a new myth:  the Motherself.  For men and for women.  It doesn’t mean having children nor does it mean giving oneself entirely to children.  It means erecting a model that is less solitary, less linear, less individualistic, and less uni-dimensional than our current hero-myth.  It means embodying more than one ambition (personal and professional); it means having a purpose that leaves room for others with us instead of making it a solo zero-sum game in which the winner takes all.  But, above all, it means society deciding to accept that quality of life nourishes quality of work; that productivity and performance will increase if and only if we allow each individual’s multi-dimensionality to bloom.

However, this is unlikely to happen as long as we shackle individuals’ challenges exclusively to individuals’ gains, which leads me to my second objection to nurturing the hero-myth perspective:

2.       Much can be improved collectively allowing individual ambitions to be less of a solitary struggle. 

In the midst of our performance society that so values domination, power and wealth (of an individual or dynasty), we are afraid of building with others lest it puts us at a disadvantage or doesn’t milk our own individual/familial achievements fully enough.  There are plenty of stories of parents writing their kids’ school papers or cheating to help their kids get ahead.  There are the voucher schools that weed the best&ambitious into one school, leaving the under-financed and under-privileged in another.  And so on and so forth.  This isn’t to point fingers.  This is to illustrate that we are all falling into the game of “I, against the world”.  And that, in our fall, we are losing hold of the sense of community a society requires and in which it’s a game of “I, empowered with the world”.

As a consequence, women’s ascension to meeting their ambitions are beholden to a solitary, zero-sum game (like the hero-myth but with even more demons to be beheaded than for a man).  It is often mentioned that women do not display the kind of solidarity that the “old boy’s network” has, and that oftentimes women are competitive with each other rather than helpful (or even simply empathetic)!  But it doesn’t need to be that way.

In each of my posts since last November, I have made the same plea:  in this 21^st century, it is time we, collectively, revalued family, intergenerationalism, interdependence.    We must revalue the collective, the constructive.  Pull away from the individualistic nuclear family and build our society, community.  Not like in a religion that dulls each voice to create unison but a community with humanist values that orchestrates a symphony or jazz session. 

Let’s face it:  it’s for false and contrived reasons that children be exclusively considered of negative value for a woman executive.  And there’s no reason every single woman must reinvent the wheel or take on singlehandedly every battle in tow in order to pursue her ambitions.  It is time that we foster a more spherical, holistic life scheme.  We must stop valuing only individualistic short-term performance and pursue sustainable development for people and communities. 

What does it mean “sustainable development for people and communities” and what are the steps to get there? 

And what does it mean concretely to shift from the hero-myth to the motherself-myth? 

Now that performance seems to have trumped living, making us lose touch with much of the richness inherent in our humanity, we are increasingly losing our liberty and our control over our own lives. 

How can we, as a community, reclaim our many forgotten strengths to positively shape this new century into a beacon of light and a springboard for progress for all of us, not just the elite? 

These are the issues I will be exploring over this new academic year.  Join the debate with me and let’s make this world the way we want it to be.

Talk to you next week,

Eve

Our 21st Century Should Pursue Collective Progress, Not Individualism!

An article in Forbes last week was brought to my attention; “Why Millennial Women Do Not Want To Lead” by Julie Zeilinger, founder and editor of FBomb.org.  In it, she concludes that despite “impossibly high” standards of achievement for women vs. “upsettingly low” standards for men, women should not shy away from leadership for “their intelligence and integrity are more than enough”. 

OK, but part of women’s trouble is that they are pigeonholed for their intelligence and their integrity:  perfect for constituting the dossier, and then have others take all the credit.  Or being outcast for being overly ambitious. 

There’s no doubt that women are given a harder time (as Ginger Roger summed it up, “I did everything Fred Astaire did but backwards and in heels”).  But the problem goes much deeper, for it touches on a societal trait that transgresses questions of gender and sex:  it’s our societal love affair with shows of power, of domination. 

It’s suggested that women lead with intelligence and integrity.  But are we socially prepared for such a switch? 

Do we collectively value integrity?  Not so often; or at least we waive it when it’s a figure we like – why else do mafia sitcoms and movies make blockbuster ratings?  A couple of years ago, there was the joke what if Lehman Brothers had been “Lehman Sisters”?  But safe bets and risk-taming measures and regulations do not have rock star kind of value and are systematically refused by half of the American population. 

Do we value intelligence?  Street smarts, maybe; business acumen that can make someone rich and powerful, sure.    But nuanced thinking?  It’s often seen as “weakness” – just consider the last couple of presidential debates and elections.  Critical thinking?  It’s slowly disappearing from educational curricula increasingly focused on skills and trivia rather than a solid, well-rounded education rooted in knowledge and critical thinking. 

And what about some of the other values Americans learn in kindergarten:  kindness?  Sharing?  No, we still trump with whatever will stoke the dream of making it rich, fast, with cold razor-sharp calculations or with no effort at all.  No, in our current mores, fame and fortune are exciting; kindness and sharing are for the suckers. 

For some of us, it’s a no brainer.  Cooperation is a key asset for performance and for survival.  It’s a key part of Darwinism – survival of the fittest is not only about competition but knowing how and when to cooperate.  But explain that to a conservative American who accuses any positive collective measures put forth by Obama of being “socialism” (as if it were a great evil!).  The truth is we are societally in awe of the powerful and aim to get there ourselves, at whatever our level. 

Love is often leveled out to sex which is leveled out to domination

Work, which used to include loyalty toward a company-wide endeavor and allegiance to the workforce, is all too often leveled to outsourcing, productivity fragmented into individualized skill sets so that some few individuals can get ahead while the many more get ever lower

Profit, which used to be reinvested into a company to improve R&D (research & development) and boost its employees, is now often leveled to a few wealthy shareholders’ returns, widening the gap if the figures are good… and widening it further if the figures are bad as they will choose to cut heads before lowering dividends.

We are letting it happen because of our awe of the rich and powerful

And/or out of fear for our own personal survival, attempting to be part of the elite so as to not find ourselves entirely disenfranchised.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.  We can have a very productive and healthy society if we move away from such dogma (performance society, still-life identities, monotheistic beauty…).

One of the legs of the women’s movement was making the personal political.  But we’ve lost control of what makes up “personal”.  At the time, it meant using collectively each individual’s experience to help society progress.  But through the 1980s, then on through the 90’s and 2000’s, the “personal” because a very “personal” singular recipe for making it on one’s “own”.  Every person has been composing with his/her “own” to get ahead, make it big, make a break… or just make it through the day! 

And where has this left us?  “Every second’s a calculation”.  Each woman strives to live the archetype of each facet of a woman’s life, simultaneously… locked into her “own”.

And our current societal model is exacerbating that:  Nuclear family as opposed to community.  A walking portfolio of skills as opposed to a company of people.  A still-life, projected identity for others as opposed to a solid self concept with a sense of our individual and collective worth.  Personal/individualized intelligence and integrity as opposed to having higher expectations of our society for an environment conducive to collective progress.

It’s even got to to the extent that a single mother in the US is one of the most isolated members of our society as described in the NY Times.   And firing-up the debate as to whether women can “have it all”.  But how can we when we’re set up for every woman to take on the entire battle single-handedly and separately, individually?  Another article showed mothers proudly taking no breaks (no maternity leave), having babies for whom they’ll have no time and for whom they have no intention of making any space… because they’re going to try to do it all… individually.  And, with such models, how will those children cope?  Individually! 

The solutions we need now is to get back to the original call for the personal… A shift for making the “personal”… collective!

What does that mean? 

-          Continue protecting family planning and pushing for universal healthcare. 

-          It means reconsidering the nuclear family and how we can raise future generations more collectively (to at least give them a more collective mindset while freeing up more time for parents to balance career and family).  As says the Nigerian proverb, and taken up by Hilary Rodham Clinton, “It takes a whole village to raise a child”.  This is a great way of summing it up – we cannot do everything each on our “own” – economically and energetically, it isn’t sustainable.  Even these powerhouse, “superwomen” cannot sustain indefinitely doing it all on her own. 

-          It also means reconsidering work, collectively.  As says one mother who took very little maternity leave, “there is no way to have a ‘blissful maternity leave and also stay in the game’”.  Work is more cut-throat than ever and, she’s right, a short absence can be an irretrievable set-back.  But, is that necessary?  Must it be this way?  This is our society, our world, it’s up to us to demand change – but we must do it collectively.  There is enough scientific research to convince us that a company is most productive when its employees are in a trusting and empowering environment and feel a certain amount of security and motivation.  If a woman wants to have a baby and not miss a beat at the office, why can’t she do it from a distance? 

We must break out of this narrow-minded idea of individual gain and remember there’s little lasting individual gain without collective progress. 

Let me know what you think.

Talk to you soon for another bite from the apple,

Eve

In this 21st Century, We, Men & Women, are Entitled to Demand "Having it All"

Just back from a trip to India, my intention was to comment on some of what I saw there… but that
will have to wait; I want to weigh in on the Slaughter article and the reactions covered by the Atlantic Monthly & the New York Times.

I agree with much, though not everything, of what Anne-Marie Slaughter writes in her article, “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All”. In the past, I have actually made many similar points in this blog. For example,

- The workplace is out of synch with the realities of non-professional life, has given into quantity of hours/face time over the high value of quality of work; that for professionals to optimize performance, downtime, and time for other aspects of life (hobby, family, leisure) are key contributors to professional performance (for men and women, with or without children). I have also proponed pursing an “integrated I” (for men & women) to counter what Slaughter refers to as a “fetish of a one-dimensional life”.
- I also agree that the expected career curve needs to be revised considering the number of
decades we’re each going to invest in our careers: the idea that a few months of maternity
leave slows a woman’s potential and/or represents a lack of investment in one’s career
(apparently it represents an 11% gap that grows over time) is a flimsy excuse, not
a reflection of reality.  It’s utter nonsense (or simply discrimination) to decide such a short
leave out of 40 years plus of work should put such a hard lid on a woman’s career
development! Especially considering that the big fad is “mompreneurs”: women who start
their own businesses in order to have the flexibility of seeing their kids and having a career.
If someone can balance the bottom line of an entire business on her own while leaving pockets of time to spend with her kids, an employee is also likely to have the capacity to handle both while remaining performing… But such is not current corporate wisdom and mothers are generally suspect unless they exhibit total devotion. This is not just a glass ceiling, this is a glass cage!
- I even go further by arguing that, beyond kids needing their parents, adults spending time with kids (their own or someone else’s) is in itself an asset in terms of the insights it brings, the empathy
& relativism it fosters, and the joy it produces (children’s laughter is infectious), not the
mention our enrichment from the questions they ask and the solutions they provoke.

To tell the truth, what really surprised me was not so much Slaughter’s propos; it’s the reactions they drew. Half the writers didn’t even get the gist of her piece, which, for me, is as follows: with societal mores so much aligned with corporate capitalistic ideals, Americans cannot hope to “have it all”… but with a little more pragmatism, these mores can evolve and create a more propitious environment for a better work-life balance for everyone.  It’s a very positive proposition, even if it will take time.  But many reactions concentrated on details… and ended up either defending the status quo (“of course you can’t do both! It’s a spoiled child’s dream of ubiquity to think you can; adults make choices and stick to them”) or arguing it’s a non issue because many already “have it all” (even though each admit to an awful lot of regrets along the way).  Over all, many reactions showcased great inertia in terms of reframing our society and the potential we want to achieve.

I am not aligned with this criticism. There is a real, fundamental problem and it’s counterproductive
to dismiss the debate for details.  What is missing from Slaughter’s analysis are testimonials from other men and women than those among the elite.  What’s missing is the voice of second and third tier classes.  People like me who have great degrees from great schools, who aren’t trying to be number one but who want to have a good job and build a career… but who face everyday discrimination and suspicion of not being committed enough because I leave work at a reasonable hour to get home for my “second shift”.  People like me who have good heads on their shoulders, have acquired experience, have real value to contribute… but who discover an exceptionally low glass ceiling because we have kids and don’t want to entirely outsource parenting.  My argument is that I don’t see why I can’t expect to have an interesting job (not spectacular!) + a decent wage + a decent life balance.  That’s what “having it all” means to me.  And any of those journalists with their cushy salaries and their flexible, mobile professions can come to me when they pretend “having it all” is a fictitious and elitist predicament.  Why should we settle for less?!  Who dare feel comfortable with the idea that I and other people like me should be sidelined only because we have multiple priorities?!  I am fighting daily in this trench.  Slaughter is touching a major need eve if she isn’t the most legitimate spokesperson.  We need a good dose of realism/ pragmatism and catapult ourselves into the 21^st century with a demand for the society we want.  A society that’s a little more lucid about what actually constitutes worth and value.  A society that believes anew in progress.

Let me know what you think. 
Talk to you next week for another bite from the apple!
- Eve

In this 21st Century, We Must Honor our Experts in Care

This week, the New York Times published an article pertaining to the increase of men working in “pink collar jobs” in the US, “More Men Enter Fields Dominated by Women”, by Shaila Dewan and Robert Gebeloff.  

The article reports that, “while women continue to make inroads into prestigious, high-wage professions dominated by men, more men are reaching for the dream in female-dominated occupations that their fathers might never have considered” – pink collar jobs like nursing, school-teaching, linked to “care”.  With the shifting economy, job growth is in the care sector as these professions cannot be off-shored.  Furthermore, men’s priorities are shifting enough for them to want to benefit from job attributes such as less stress, more time at home, and personal gratification (challenge and emotional return) beyond salary.   This shift is even taking place among uneducated men, typically associated with a higher level of male chauvinism. 

What good news!  This is precisely what I was advocating in my March 8^th blog, convinced as I am that we must have men recognize the importance and value of care before we can hope for a better work-life balance in Western societies.   Thanks to this new trend, we can hope that care issues will escape the exclusive clutches of “woman’s work” and come to the fore of men’s and women’s minds while liberating each gender to also excel in other domains.

But the article also exposes an important marker in our fight for gender equality:  even in these fields where women’s expertise is recognized, and in such a short time frame,   there is a “glass escalator”.  Glass escalator is a term coined by sociologist Christine L. Williams expressing a phenomenon in which men move up more quickly to supervisory positions thanks to their gender.  Yes, while women’s career paths are truncated by the “glass ceiling” in male-dominated professions and, as I have named, working mothers are held back by a “glass cage”, men are empowered (or abetted) by the “glass escalator”.  

Is it because of their skills / qualities vs. those of women (for example, stereotypically more authoritative and therefore more likely to lead?)?  Or is it because administrators are largely male and tend to promote talents more similar to them?  Or is it because there are fewer men in these fields and therefore more visible, making administrators notice them more?  Or is it because socially we all still defer to the man? 

In 1977, Rosabeth Moss Kanter had pinpointed “Occupational Sex Segregation”, which discriminately segregated women into lower paying positions with little training, building a self-perpetuating mechanism with which the rare women promoted were lacking in experience and skills compared to the men and whose legitimacy and chances to succeed were largely diminished. 

But this is not the case here.  In pink collar jobs, it is the men, not the women, who are lacking the experience and skills (outside of skills acquired through parenting, as men become increasingly implicated in their family lives).  So, outside of gender discrimination, women should be high on the ladder, not the newly arriving men.

This is where it gets tricky.  According the studies pursued by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, it is in part because the hands-on positions within the pink color sectors require a very high level of caring and relational skills, experience, and expertise.  Reportedly, when women have moved up and men have moved into some care positions (hospitals, for example), care recipients have complained, requesting that the women come back (whether the reason be comfort with traditional roles or a real difference in care remains to be clarified). 

So, women are thwarted when considered not skilled enough and thwarted when considered well skilled.

Beyond arguments that we have not yet attained gender equality and/or that Western culture is still largely patriarchal; beyond scientific arguments that corpulence, low voice, height, and testosterone play into the dynamics of chieftains and power politics, there’s another issue here.  For me, the crux of the matter is that there is no reason for managerial roles to be paid more or valued more than expertise roles. 

Of course management is important for an organization to run well.  Talent management and creative decision-making is key to an entity’s well-being and performance.  But the actual expertise and savoir-faire is just as key… and should be valued.  Every last ambitious business person gets their MBA (good news – the number of women enrolled in MBAs is growing) so that they can be a manager.  But a manager of what?  For what?  Shouldn’t that manager be skilled in the profession in order to optimize the quality of his or her decision making? 

Our performance society is guiding us to gut our professions of their life-force, of their specificity, in the name of process and organization… and management.  And maybe that’s necessary.  But is it necessary to the point of awarding the best salaries to the managers instead of the skilled experts?  I’m not talking about the number one creative director in an advertising agency or creative expert at an innovator like Apple, who, as few as they are, are paid handsomely (and discarded as quickly when no longer performing…). 

I’m talking about skilled workers like our pink collar workers.  Men or Women.

Yes, the good news here, despite my pushing for improvements, is that men are discovering and spreading the news that “care” jobs are challenging, rewarding, enriching, even exciting.  It’s time we started honoring the jobs which have a direct impact on our well-being rather than only the superfluous and material.  It’s time we honor our experts in care.  


Let me know what you think.
In the meantime, talk to you next week for another bite from the apple,
Eve 

Glass Ceiling? The 21st Century will be about fighting the Glass Cage

This year, Barnard College’s graduating class was addressed by Barack Obama at its commencement ceremony.  Obama made a great speech in the name of activism and collective implication, rallying the women before him to, “fight for a place at the table; to fight for a place at the head of the table.”

He’s right on!  And clearly, if he’s making a case for it, it’s because we aren’t there yet; there’s still much work to be done.

Well, I’d like to high-five him and bid even higher:  our fight must include working mothers at the table.

Currently, society is evolving towards a divide between women who devote their lives to their work vs. women who have children – whether or not they also work outside the home.  According to Rana Foroohar in Time magazine (May 21, 2012 edition), “in many wealthy, urban areas of the US and Europe, young, well-educated and (crucially) childless women now out-earn their male peers… whereas some married couples are deciding to live on one salary when the economic trade-off of lower-paying jobs, child-care costs, taxes and commuting doesn’t add up… [leaving] two extremes: those with demanding, well-paid jobs who can afford help to manage their lives, homes, and children – and those who provide that help.”

What we’re up against is a glass ceiling that’s curving into a glass cage for working mothers.

It’s to such an extent that many American women are forced into making the “choice” to stay home with their children.  But costly day-care and taxes are not the only culprits, for here in France, we have similar discrimination despite high-quality state-subsidized day care, some elderly care, and universal healthcare.  It all comes down to the fact that corporations expect absolute availability and that, as a woman, particularly suspect of disloyalty (she might have a baby or use sick days to take care of an aging parent), must do everything a man does but “backwards and in heels,” to quote Ginger Rogers referring to Fred Astair.  Sheryl Sandberg made it to the “table” but only after sleepless nights by Mark Zuckerberg’s side.  Total devotion.   Anything less, and you’re suspect of not being committed enough. 

Fine for Rogers and Sandberg, but this is unsustainable, it leaves out a lot of talent, and it leaves out the great skills acquired as a parent which could be transferred into an executive’s quality of work. 

I graduated from Barnard Columbia in 1998.  My commencement address was far more sobering.  Joyce Purnick gave us the low-down:  women, she said, you can’t Have It All!  I balked at the time… but I am still struggling to prove her wrong.   And, around me, I can see many, many women facing the same battle of “only” working 9 or 10 hours a day in order to see their children at night… only to find themselves marginalized at work, their career paths slowed because their priorities are resented. 

That’s why I’m pleading that the “glass cage” be one of the major battles of the 21^st century.   Without it, women will be forced into reductionist views either expecting women to stay home with their children or, to be a good professional, have no children at all.  Honestly, attachment parenting that’s been getting so much press is not the point, nor are questions over perfect parenting (or, rather, perfect mothering);

these are decoys stealing attention away from the larger issue of incorporating family into our career-filled lives. 

Obama’s strategy of getting more women “at the table” should help catalyze collective progress… but only if the debate stops being strictly about gender.  The women at the table must include working mothers, in addition to the childless and to the women who have decided to have their children raised by someone else (I mention them because often I have heard the most pressure and/or discrimination against young mothers trying to do both comes from older women who had to sacrifice motherhood to stay in the game:  “if I had to do it, so should you”).

The guiding principle of our aim should center on quality of life for all our citizens – children needing care, aging parents needing care… and adults needing breathing room to improve their lives (as well as the quality of the work they supply).   Our society is an ecosystem that thrives on oxygen and circulation, as does a body.  As long as we nourish only a few individuals born within the elite, there can be no lasting progress, either individual or collective.  It is time to ignite a system which includes every age and every class, so that we may all move forward, together.

Please share your thoughts in the comment below.

In the meantime, talk to you next week, for another bite from the apple,

Eve

21st Century Demographics: We Must Re-Empower Our Seniors!

Recently in the New York Times, David Brooks wrote a think piece called “The Fertility Implosion” talking about the demographic pyramid’s inversion in most parts of the world (including the Middle East and China but not yet including India).   It’s a rapidly aging world, he says, and the US may gain in worldwide competitiveness thanks to its relatively slower pace of demographic inversion.

He quotes Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute who tempers that demography isn’t destiny and that you can have fast economic development with low fertility or high fertility (ex South Korea, Taiwan)… but Brooks note that, generally speaking, “rapidly aging population and the lack of young people entering the workforce could lead to long-term decline.” 

Living in Europe, the demographic inversion, in which the demographic pyramid reverses, leaving many more seniors compared to youths (or, in terms of workforce, mainly more retirees vs. number of young people eligible to work), is a reality of which we’ve been aware for some time and cause for great debate.   For a couple of years now, we have been debating a “decent” retirement age while keeping the social system sustainable (enough workers paying into the system to cover the retirement fund and health system among other civil structures (infrastructure, education, etc.).

Part of what is difficult for those of us following the debate is that each party shows often contradictory findings as to the realities of the economics of it all.  Canadian research institutes, for example, have published a number studies that disprove the side-effects of Philip Longman’s predicted “grey tsunami” showing that this is not what will cost the most in healthcare… but as a layperson, it’s always a bit complicated weeding out whose analysis is the closest to reality or the most trustworthy. 

That’s why I’d like to take on an entirely different angle. 

Let me quote it again: “rapidly aging population and the lack of young people entering the workforce could lead to long-term decline.” 

We are totally forgetting the valuable resource that our “seniors” represent.  In the workforce as well as in society.

Our old-fashioned ideas about seniors is exhausting and wasting a real asset for progress.

1.  First of all, we’re exhausting our seniors.  I have spoken often with aging professionals and retirees in a number of countries and different nationalities.  Many companies decide that once an employee has reached a certain age, he or she is no longer dynamic enough to help keep the company competitive.  They do what they can to dismiss them and hire on younger workers. 

Once someone in their 50s is looking for a job, they’re considered too old and often are unable to find a job (this is even more true for women who continue to be particularly strained by the social requirement to be young and beautiful).  In France, many negotiate an “anticipated retirement” which buys them out of the workforce but which, oftentimes, entails a lower pension.  Furthermore, there is a growing rate of retired women who are finding themselves in poverty, receiving, on average, 42% less than men at retirement. 

Once they’ve gone through this type of second-guessing and lack of consideration, it’s no wonder that they are exhausted and dream of retirement and the liberty and respect it evokes.

2.  Further, we’re wasting the valuable resources they represent and can contribute

In the past, a group’s “elders” were guides to wisdom and balance.  Our democratic societies have since overturned what was at times a rigid hierarchy and norms, empowering the voice of youth and the possibility and fresh perspective it can represent.  This has been a key step to progress, with young people often propelling movements (cf. social movements of the 1960s) to counterbalance the sometimes conservative reflexes attributed to the later life cycles (cf. Erik Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory of Human Development).

Nonetheless, we seem now to have arrived at a point in which we perpetually reinvent the wheel due to lack of transmission.   Lack of sharing and handing down / passing on knowledge gained by experience and reflection.  Seniors’ knowledge and expertise are invaluable to companies’ performance, as are their perspective and relativism acquired by years of experience.  Yet seniors seem to lose their place to younger, less experienced talents who don’t cost as much (lower pay for longer hours all in the name of future success) and who are stereotyped as more dynamic.    It’s amazing that companies and society don’t calculate how much time experience can save a project and how much money perspective can bring to ventures. 

Beyond transmission, there’s also the established fact that seniors represent a growing consumer group, pushing companies to create and develop new offers for this target… they are therefore a concrete motor in terms of economic growth and stimulation (cf. recently published study by Ernst & Young, “La Révolution des Services”)… plus, their insight would be a decisive advantage in developing these types of offers.

On a societal level, shutting out elders can have further unintended consequences.  It can make them more conservative as they try to hold onto their former acquisitions against fears of the unknown… an unknown that is exacerbated by this same lack of transmission and exchange.   They then feel disenfranchised and are likely to resist change because of it. 

Instead, we should bring seniors into the debate, not as defenders of the past but as co-makers of the future.  Collective progress (and/or company performance) gains when there’s debate and when ideas are challenged and confronted… and when all actors / stakeholders are implicated so as to help them endorse the new direction.  Making our future a cross-generational goal can bring our elders into the debate, benefit from their know-how and perspective, and thus solidify and optimize our common responses & solutions for the issues facing our world.  

How can we make it happen?

We must change what work means at their age, redefining their specific role and legitimacy.

I have spoken with many individuals of 60+ years.  According to their stories, they are tired:  they don’t want to deal with so much stress anymore or work so many long hours day in and day out.  They tell me they can feel themselves not working as well as they used to, that they are no longer quite so efficient.  As conscientious professionals, they’re uncomfortable about not performing as well as in their “peek years”.  Above all, they want to avoid feeling devalued.

Meanwhile, many who have retired showcase the luxury of having free time, noting its positive impact on creativity and quality of life.  Oftentimes they are also desirous of playing a more active role beyond their intimate circle, making them a dynamic part of society.  They’d like to be taken for being as young as they still feel.

Others, who are retired… but continue some professional activity on a part-time basis, let me know that they feel better than ever; that they have worthy goals to meet without the exhaustion they could no longer bear due to the physical realities of their age.

For me, these insights point to some initial policy making:  we must allow our seniors to contribute to society while also improving their income by giving them paid, part-time roles across all professions and levels.  Too tired as a policeman to continue on the beat?  Pay him or her to help train new police recruits on a part-time basis.  Too tired as a teacher to deal with disciplinarian problems or too many students per class?  Pay him or her to give after-school help, freeing up time for the fulltime, overwrought teacher while also bringing an additional support system to help to the students (“it takes a village”).  Too tired as an executive to travel so much?  Pay him or her to coach, council, or transmit learning and best-practices to rising talents.  Etc. 

This would not be mandatory; no one would be required to do it, it would simply be an option allowing the volunteers to make more money (in addition to their pensions), share their talent, enrich the project, etc.… in short, work in a way that is pertinent for them and their situation.   In this way, our seniors would be very much part of a society’s well-being, progress, and performance.  They would no longer be a sign of “decline” but, on the contrary, a recognized force contributing to growth and quality of life.

But the crux of the matter is:  we are getting held up by our cult of youth.

This is a subject I’ll soon tackle in subsequent blogs (this post is already long enough!) but suffice it to say here that our “Performance Society” and our “Marketing of Me” is pushing us to always pursue “youth” no matter our age:

Madonna soon to be 54 years old

It seems to me rather counterproductive to pursue youth via paralysis, nostalgia, and refusal to mature… but, above all, it seems damaging to our society to strip the benefits of age and maturity of their value.

One final point regarding this alleged “fertility implosion”: where there’s smoke there’s often a flame.  If it is true that we need to be watchful over extremely low fertility rates (which is not what I have heard otherwise but…), then, beyond re-empowering seniors / age to make our new demography an asset, our other task is to do what’s necessary to make it easier to conciliate having a family and a career for both men and women!

I’d love to hear your comments.  Otherwise, catch you all next week for another bite from the apple!

Talk to you then,

Eve