After some tweet and email discussions with Anne Marie Slaughter and Cali Williams Yost about Anne Marie’s article on The Atlantic, and the uproar about Marissa Mayer becoming Yahoo’s CEO while she is pregnant, I decided to weigh in. Finally, we are having an honest discussion of “having it all” instead of perpetuating a fairly tale. While this has mainly been viewed as a ‘woman’s’ issue, it is a very human issue.
The phrase “having it all” is a huge part of the problem. First, no human being can have it all, regardless of gender. Second, as an advocate of Buber’s “I-Thou”, the focus of “having it all” is on I, not Thou. I firmly believe that focusing on “I” always leads to disappointment (in ourselves and others), dissatisfaction with one’s life and an addiction to seeking satisfaction and happiness. It leads to judging others and ourselves by what we don’t have but want, what we feel we are entitled to and what we did or didn’t do. It leads to a treadmill of keeping up and keeping ahead. It reinforces a binary world of it’s “me” or “them” - either/or – not “us”, not “and”. Throughout my career, when I focus on the “Thou”, helping my clients’ solve challenges and innovate resulting in growth, jobs, philanthropy, the “I” takes care of itself. When I focus on the needs of others, clients, entrepreneurs and students I mentor, my network, my own business grows as well, allowing me to do more “Thou”… a virtuous and incredibly rewarding (oh, “I”!) cycle.
My journey of work+life has been blessedly based on “I-Thou” + “AND”, very progressive for its time. Growing up in Bell Labs, I was very spoiled with a great deal of freedom, intellectual stimulation, and no sense of gender discrimination. It was a discovery ‘factory’ that sought AND solutions. My bosses were mentors who led with “I-Thou”:
- One put his credibility on the line to promote me, a 22yr old ‘kid’, to a level that required a Ph.D. or at least MS, making me the first, if not one of, to get to that level without the required degrees;
- Another measured his success on his people’s success (output) and impact (outcome); he was one of the most admired, and loved, managers and had one of the highest promotion rates.
When I said I was quitting to move to Oberlin, OH to marry my husband in 1988, AT&T/Bell Labs offered to move me if I wouldn’t quit…another “I-Thou” moment. My management made the case for paying to move me to Oberlin and pay for weekly commutes than lose me. For 9 years I flew to NJ every week and to Europe or Asia monthly, was given a laptop with global network access, a cell phone and a fully equipped home office. When I had children, with fabulous maternity-leave and benefits, I returned to work from home, no travel, part-time – keeping my same level and responsibilities. I was able to do very meaningful, impacting work because I demonstrated my talent and my management recognized my worth.
I love what I do. I am passionate (and blessed) about the impact my work can have on my clients’ business, employees and communities, my mentees, “portfolio companies” - professionally, organizationally and even personally. I find it difficult to separate my passion for my ‘work’ from my passion for ‘life’ and hope to impart that to my children. I pray they find an ‘avocation’ that integrates the various aspects of their lives. I want them to know that they can impact the world in many ways – from career to marriage to parenthood to friendships etc.; that their solution is an AND, not Either/Or. The workplace is evolving, in fits and starts as it fights the status quo, to make this goal more achievable than in the past.
We’ve all make trade-offs in our lives. It’s impossible not to. Anne Marie Slaughter’s essay makes it clear that these are personal choices that require honest and straightforward discussion without judgment. This is not to say that we don’t have an issue with women’s accessibility to influence and power in the ‘corporate’ world. We do. But we need to ease up on prescribing and focus on enabling solutions that meet the needs of the working person as a whole: as an employee, parent, spouse, sibling, child, community member, etc. It’s messy – welcome to the 21st C! Everything is a ‘mess’ – and what a blessing! This messiness is the foundation of change, transformation and innovation. Perhaps we needed to reach this point to finally create flexible, agile, nimble solutions that don’t discriminate between “work” and “life”. This is the century of AND not Either/Or…of trying to ‘give it all’ vs. ‘have it all’.
So, what can you do to evolve to an “I-Thou” management style, culture, habit? How can you leverage that to help you and your employees create an AND solution? How can you avoid creating a false choice of Either/Or? How can you change your perspective and leverage the opportunity this ‘mess’ provides to create incredible outcomes for Thou’s?
At Bell Labs we used to say, "How much did you pay for that data?"
Most market research projects - for strategic planning and innovation (my passions) or even incremental product development focus on getting the facts. Lets take a look at an example: One college in America, who I shall not name, states on their website that "Since 1920, more CollegeXgraduates have gone on to earn PhDs than have the graduates of any other American baccalaureate college."
This is true, it's a fact...so let's look at "WHY" (I love asking why!)
- Because CollegeX is older than most of the institutions it's compared to for this data
- Because CollegeX is bigger than most of the institutions it's compared to for this data
- The data is taken from 1920 to 2010 - that's 90 years averaged
- Over the past 20yrs, this is no longer true
Electric companies say that electric heat is 100% efficient compared to natural gas which is about 90% efficient. But in terms of generation and distribution, electricity is 33% efficient and generation and distribution of natural gas is about 98% efficient.
Electric vehicles don't generate pollution! Hum...what about the production of the electricity to charge a car? How does that (remember, most electricity is generated from burning coal and once it's out on the wires, it's only about 33% efficient) compare with a combustion engine? Given today's electric grid (the one we've got), EVs aren't saving that much carbon.
Remember the Juan Williams saga with NPR and Fox and his statement about Muslims on a plane? And the recent firing of NPR's CEO? Lots of facts on all sides, most taken out of context. And we can just look at what's going on in the Mideast/North Africa to see how data are being used as facts in so many different contexts by different groups.
So why do I bring this up? Because while facts are important, humans have a tendency to pick the facts that support the hypothesis they want to confirm. The order in which facts are presented can strongly bias the interpreter. We don't tend to ask questions about what the facts don't say.
Facts can get in the way of innovation unless they are put in the right context - as a tool to look at things differently vs. taking them as the end-all-be-all. When presented with facts, try a few things to get a different perspective - ask....
- If we reordered the facts, how would things look? (e.g., NPR)
- What don't these facts address? (e.g., Electric heat)
- What do these facts assume as truth? (e.g., CollegeX)
- What follow-on questions result from these facts?
- Why are these facts true?
- How long will these facts be true for?
- Who cares about these facts anyway?
So, check the facts, get some facts, but put them in perspective, be prudent...provide balance and ballast...because sometimes, the facts can hinder, not help innovation...