By Robin Madell (San Francisco)

“We live in an age of advanced technology, which provides opportunities for more efficient and flexible modes of communicating and working. Eliminating policies such as a flexible work schedule diminishes our progressive advances, and most often negatively impacts women more than men, as women are predominately the primary caretakers and are in greater need of flex time.”
–Tammy Marzigliano, Partner, Outten Golden LLP

First it was Yahoo’s decision to cut work-from-home arrangements. Now Best Buy is following suit. In the current corporate climate, flex work opportunities — previously embraced by many HR departments as good for retention and smart for business—are under increased scrutiny as struggling companies look for ways to cut corners.

What this means for employees is that those with previous telecommuting arrangements may suddenly find themselves scrambling to rebalance their work-life arrangements if corporate flex policies change. To be prepared, it’s important to be proactive by exploring steps you can take if you find yourself with a new manager who’s anti-flex work, or if someone in the chain of command says you can’t work from home anymore.

Read more

By Robin Madell (San Francisco)

The perennial “Having It All” debate at times leads to the concept of “sequencing,” which suggests that women can in fact have everything they want from work and family life, if only they stagger their timing of when they focus on each. (As a side note, some have bristled at the idea that having it all is exclusively a women’s issue—see a Wharton professor’s post on the HBR Blog Network for this perspective.)

The concept of sequencing continues to be promoted by some prominent female leaders, such as Michele Flournoy, formerly the highest woman in the Pentagon, and disputed by others, such as Anne-Marie Slaughter, former director of policy planning at the state department under Hillary Clinton and author of the controversial article published last year in The Atlantic called “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.”

In an interview with NPR for All Things Considered, Flournoy comments:

“I just think … there’s a sequencing. I mean, I’m one who believes that you can have it all—you just can’t always have it at exactly the same time with equal intensity. My career has looked like a sine curve in terms of balancing and rebalancing. Different periods where I’ve had more intense career focus versus more of a family focus.”

The NPR interview notes Flournoy’s admission, however, that the vision of sequencing isn’t possible for everyone, since many women lack the support that they’d need to rebalance while still remaining competitive. This leads to the counterpoint of the argument: that sequencing is a myth.

In an interview with Slaughter published in The New York Times, Slaughter suggests that women need to stop perpetuating the idea that doing it all is possible if you simply rely on sequencing:

“We say either ‘you can have it all’ or ‘you can have it all, but not at the same time.’ The first is true only in extraordinary circumstances. … I also wanted to say to my generation, ‘Hey, we’re not actually helping by just repeating this mantra.’ For those of us who have managed who do it, we need to admit that we are the exception and not the rule. We need to stop congratulating ourselves and focus on the reality for most women.”

Which side of the fence do you fall on? The Glass Hammer polled a group of women from diverse industries, as well as career experts, for their experience and feedback.

Read more

By Robin Madell (San Francisco)

Despite the slowly churning economic recovery, massive layoffs continue to occur with frightening frequency. For example, with 2013 barely underway, big banks across Wall Street began announcing plans for large-scale layoffs, and other industries will likely follow.

Might your spouse or partner be among those let go? It’s something that paired professionals have to worry about. Even if your own job seems secure, the loss of a partner’s position can wreak financial and emotional havoc on your household and threaten the lifestyle to which your family has become accustomed.

Business owner Lisa Adams recently lived through her husband being out of work. Though he began a new job in January, it required the couple to relocate, adding another layer of stress to an already difficult situation. Adams and her spouse found the loss of her husband’s income hard to manage as well. “We lived within a three months’ severance and no unemployment since he worked for a nonprofit,” she says. “Financially extremely challenging.”

What should professional women do—financially for their family and emotionally for their partner or children—if their spouse or partner loses their job? The Glass Hammer asked Roy Cohen, author of The Wall Street Professional’s Survival Guide, for his advice. “This is one of the greatest challenges professionals and their families may ever face: unemployment and job loss,” says Cohen. “Its impact on families is enormous and the effect of long-term joblessness has yet to be fully understood or examined.”

He adds that how parents manage the stress and hardship of job loss will have a significant impact on how their children approach change and loss in their own lives. “It is a great opportunity to model the very best behaviors and to show children that it is possible to navigate change successfully and with confidence rather than fear,” says Cohen.

Cohen offers these suggestions on how spouses and significant others can provide support during a job search, for better or worse.

Read more

By Melissa J. Anderson (New York City)

Last month the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a new study examining the causes of the wage gap in its member countries.

According to the study, working mothers make less, and having a child can cost a family significantly. The average gender pay gap between men and women without children is seven percent. But for couples with one or more child, that gap widens to 22 percent.

At its very core, the issue is still the sinister and usually unconscious notion that the primary “job” of women should be childrearing. Women in the workforce make less, in large part, because our society encourages us to see female workers as non-breadwinners, as secondary income earners doing a secondary job. And because all women are viewed as potential mothers whether they have children or not, all women are subject to the penalty in some way.

It’s easy to write this viewpoint off as a relic of times past or a trait of so-called unenlightened geographies. But to do so would be wrong. After all, the research was done in 2012 and OECD countries tend to have relatively high incomes globally – in other words, they are mainly “developed” economies like Australia, Italy, Japan, Norway, Turkey, and the United States.

Nor is the wage gap an idiosyncrasy of the lower end of the income range. In fact, the gap between men and women’s income levels is widest for the rich. According to the study, female top-earners make 21 percent less than male top-earners.

All this aside, the wage gap is nothing new. But what is new is the OECD’s suggestion that continuing to ignore the gap could deplete the global talent pool at a time when retirement rates are rapidly rising in these countries. It’s also wasting the vast amounts of money spent to increase the educational attainment of girls in recent decades. The report states:

“Gender inequality means not only foregoing the important contributions that women make to the economy, but also wasting years of investment in educating girls and young women. Making the most of the talent pool ensures that men and women have an equal chance to contribute both at home and in the workplace, thereby enhancing their well-being and that of society.”

Ultimately, the OECD study indicates, the wage gap could slow down economic growth at a time when businesses – from the smallest entrepreneurial venture to the largest multinational – cannot afford it.

Read more

By Tina Vasquez (Los Angeles)

In the past three or four months we’ve seen the publication of a number of controversial articles regarding women and the idea of having it all or being perfect, including Why Women Should Stop Trying to be Perfect by Debora Spar and Anne-Marie Slaughter’s much-discussed Why Women Still Can’t Have It All, both of which essentially discuss the seemingly never-ending quest for work-life balance – or as Slaughter writes, figuring out “how to combine professional success and satisfaction with a real commitment to family.” Both articles and many like them cover the same topics we’ve been reading about for years and despite the rapidly changing demographics of the U.S., both fail at being inclusive of women of color (WOC).

To be fair, Slaughter touches on the subject – slightly, writing that she is “well aware that the majority of American women face problems far greater than any discussed in this article. I am writing for my demographic — highly educated, well-off women who are privileged enough to have choices in the first place.” Clearly Slaughter can’t speak on experiences she hasn’t had, but acknowledging that she’s only speaking to – and for – a small percentage of women while skirting the issue of race doesn’t really convey that she truly understands her privilege. She continues:

“Millions of other working women face much more difficult life circumstances. Some are single mothers; many struggle to find any job; others support husbands who cannot find jobs. Many cope with a work-life in which good day care is either unavailable or very expensive; school schedules do not match work schedules; and schools themselves are failing to educate their children. Many of these women are worrying not about having it all, but rather about holding on to what they do have.”

Still, no real mention WOC or the unique challenges, hardships, and prejudices they face in academia and the workplace. So many of these types of articles discuss feminism and sisterhood, all while framing the discussion as if minority women don’t exist.

Read more