Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I read the Business Week cover story and was pleased to see Digital
    getting the good press. My second impression was that it is alot
    of wishful thinking that this is how things are done at DEC. But
    as with many of the companies in the story, I suspect that Anne
    Keller, in Stow, is an exception.

    I think the best result of this media "blitz" would be to get the
    right people talking about the changing needs of todays parents.
    I don't think this should be treated as soley a womans issue. Let's
    hope DEC will be in the forefront of a movement toward job sharing
    and reduced hours for executive woman (and noexecutives as well).
    
    Gail   

    

moved by moderator
    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 500.0                       The Mommy Track                       2 replies
VIDEO::KELLY "Kathy Kelly"                           36 lines  13-MAR-1989 17:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Womannoters, the following note should arouse your interest, and perhaps 
your ire as well.  I'm entering it because I don't fully understand the 
potential ramifications of the subject matter.  Your comments will be 
greatly appreciated.

The January/February issue of the Harvard Business REview contains an 
article written by Felice Schwartz (a management consultant, I believe). 
 Apparently this article makes a statement which most of us already 
know, which is that many women face strong conflict between career and 
family, and suggests ways in which employers can adapt to this situation 
(and reduce the conflict for working women).  

I have not read the article, nor have I read excerpts from it.  I have 
heard one news report (on NBC) about the article.  That news report 
seemed to conclude that Ms. Schwartz's ideas would require women to 
decide early in their careers whether or not they would have children; 
their employers would then help them pursue the "appropriate" career 
path:  the fast track or the mommy track.  An editorial in the Wall 
Street Journal supports Ms. Schwartz's ideas, and calls for greater job 
flexibility in the form of shared jobs, part-time jobs and flex time.  
This editorial does not mention that women must choose between the fast 
or mommy track.

Have any of you seen the original article?  If so, can you please give 
us a summary of it?  If the mommy track precludes the fast track during 
a woman's childbearing and/or childrearing years, is the mommy track a 
step forward or backward for women?  If a woman declares her maternal 
intentions early in her career (is this even legal???) and joins the 
mommy track, does she limit her options and opportunities, or does she 
relieve herself of the conflict many working women now feel?  If a 
mother chooses to work part-time (or share a job with another woman), 
does she necessarily slow down her career - even though she uses the 
same skills as when she worked full-time, and even though her job 
responsibilities are at the same level (though fewer in number) as when 
she worked full-time?  Do you see other implications, good or bad, in 
the mommy track?

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 500.1                       The Mommy Track                          1 of 2
DLOACT::RESENDEP "nevertoolatetohaveahappychildhood" 12 lines  13-MAR-1989 18:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I haven't read the article either.  Did it imply that once the woman
    declared her choice early in her career, that she'd be stuck with
    it regardless??
    
    If someone had asked me at age 20, I'd have said I'd probably have
    children and continue to escalate my career as if I didn't have
    them.  I know better now, but I might have made a choice back then
    that needed to be changed 5, 10, or 15 years later.
    
    Just curious...
    
    							Pat

    I would encourage everyone to read the original article which
    Ann Broomhead typed in and which constitutes the bulk of
    the text of note 474. I've consolidated the text of notes
    499 and 500 here, as a separate note because, given the 499
    base note, this has a somewhat independent existence. 
    
    May I please request, as a moderator that before you enter a note
    you do a dir /title= to see if your topic has already been
    entered previously? Try several different words, if you
    aren't sure how the title is listed.  Note  7 is a list of all
    the notes titles from the first note in this file. Or if you think
    you remember that there was something entered recently,go to the 
    last note (type last at the notes prompt) and type dir, which
    will give you all the notes from last to first (if you wish to
    follow them that far!)
    
    Finally, I suspect that there are those of you who read this conference
    who have not yet discovered the magic of 'set seen' which allows
    you to be conversant with all of the currently active notes. For
    those of you who don't understand 'set seen' please drop me mail
    and I'll send out an explanation.
    
    Bonnie J
    co-moderator
    
    Thanks
    Bonnie J
    moderator
    

    It is interesting to me that all of the articles listed (and I have
    read all of them but the WSJ editorial) treat this as a women's
    issue exclusively.  In my mind, it should not be a women's issue,
    but a family issue.  How in the world do we change the mindset to
    the point where half the time it is the Daddy who is taking the part-time,
    job-sharing, reduced hours route?  I know it is happening in pockets
    today (my brother-in-law has the 2nd income while my sister is on
    a management track at HP), but it is rare and *not acknowledged*
    yet in the press.  How do we change the mindset - thoughts anyone?
    
    Alison
    

    RE:  499.6  Family, not Women 
    
    Excellent point.  Yes, responsibilities within the context of
    family that comprise parenting, care taking for elderly family
    members, and custodial care for the home itself [ I mean here the
    usual housekeeping chores often ascribed to the housewife in
    earlier social times ] should be considered by partners in a marriage
    as equal ones.  It seems to manifest itself as a women's issue
    because of the changing mores and social dynamics that potentially
    displace traditional roles.  In business and in church organizations,
    the problem today focuses somewhat on the fact that men are in
    decision making roles , with power to effect change or not.
    
    Thus, to consider change, it is to consider first the issue as a
    women's issue ........  and then to place it as a generic issue.
    
    
    To begin to change is to change.  What chores are given to children
    by parents such that chores are defined by gender?  What decisions
    are made by parents ?  Does one parent typically assume authority
    in some areas by dint of information and skill or by gender?
    
    
    Family dynamics are the wellspring of future change in society.
    

    
    Re: .6 and .7
    
    I think it's important for men to challenge other men's assumptions within
    business and other organizations about family responsibilities.
    In a lot of cases, an effective way to do it is to put things on
    a nongender-related basis.  For example, I asked for some time off
    (at another company, long ago and far away) so that I could be
    home to let in an appliance repairer.  We had consulted our calendars
    and decided that I had the less demanding day.  When I asked, my boss
    answered, "Why don't you just have your wife stay home?" and went on
    to imply that *his* wife stayed at home to handle things like this.
    I explained that, first of all, my wife had other obligations, and
    second, that my wife was irrelevant to the request.  All I had asked
    him for was time off - my wife's job, or even the fact that I was
    married, had no bearing on my request.  I suggested in the future
    that he stick to business and stop making assumptions about people's
    lives outside work.  (This may sound like I over reacted, but this was
    just one of a string of incidents that happened to many of us in
    the group.)  I basically pulled his sexist rug out from under him,
    and got him to deal with the problem in a professional manner.  As a
    male talking to another male, I may have given him something to chew
    on that he might have rejected had it come from a female.  Plus, I also
    saw it as an issue of my rights as a professional.
    
    Ron

My husband currently works a 4 day 40 hr week (whew) at another computer/software
vender. Before DEC, I too had the 4 day week; we did this to allow our daughter
some time with her folks, and less time at daycare. At some point I will try
to get my 4 day week back, my current boss seems open minded based on a little
conversation.

I just wanted to say that it is truly time that 'families' weren't just the
mommie and kids! And also to say note .8 was great!

julie

    Re: .6
    
    >How do we change the mindset - thoughts anyone?
    
    Well, one way to get men to think poorly of the "mother is default
    parent" syndrome is to present it as insulting to men.  It assumes
    that women are automatically better parents than men and that men
    are actually substandard in the area of child-rearing.  This ties
    in with the arguments of the fathers' rights organizations.  They
    protest gender-based rulings on custody and feel that they are
    short-changed in custody battles because they are men.  They want
    men to be perceived as equal parents.  The trick, of course, is
    to have this role-definition translated into reality.  If men took
    a more active role in parenting, they would be able to stand before
    a judge on more equal footing.  There would be an objective basis
    (or perhaps stronger objective basis) for the designation of fathers
    as equal parents.
    

	This topic is also being discussed (with rather less activity) in
	HUMAN::DIGITAL topic 751. There the focus is more DEC related then
	'real world' related. Hit KP7 etc.

				Alfred

    A few weeks after I joined Digital SWS in mid-1985, a woman started
    in the same field office as a Sales Associate.  Within one year she took
    3-4 months off to have a child.  The Sales UM assigned another rep
    to cover her accounts.  She came back, and slowly caught up
    technically, as the period she was gone was filled with product
    announcements, including the BI VAXen and lots of networking products.

    Her return date coincided with a new fiscal year, and she received 
    different accounts in the shuffle.  After 1.5 years, in which she 
    used LOTS of support resources since she "wasn't technical", she 
    took another 3-4 months off to have a second child.

    Upon her return she received, you guessed it, different accounts.
    Also she was quite behind on the new products.  After 6 months of
    struggling (and lots of coaching/support from SWS) Sales management 
    sent her back to CSST.  
    
    After 6 months back, with a brand-new set of bottom-of-the-barrel
    accounts, she left the company to pursue an (unnamed) Masters degree.
    The problems, as I see them, was her self-concept of technical 
    ineptitude, plus being absent at the wrong (?) times... account 
    assignment time.  
    
    So did this woman systematically back herself into a corner, or is
    she a victim of the 'system' in a fast-paced industry ?  Can an
    industry that moves as fast as this one support employees who absent
    themselves for considerable lengths of time ?  Can you say
    "RISC/Ultrix" ? Does a person who is either gone or 'catching up' 
    deserve the same remuneration as someone who is present and productive?
    What about the increased work load of those who have to shoulder an 
    extra burden at work during the maternity leave ?  This is a situation
    that no job-sharing or part-time arrangement can solve, IMO.
    
    karl
    

    And, today's Boston Globe has a Q & A with the author of the HBR
    article clarifying her thoughts.
    
    

    I can see taking several months off to have a child, but I don't
    think there's any reason one can't log in occasionally to keep up
    with current distribution of information, relevant files, etc. 
    I mean, there's nothing like being there and talking to people and
    doing work, but at least one can keep up.  Why didn't she read up
    on some technical stuff while home with the child?  I mean, were
    I to leave work to have a child, and I were serious about maintaining
    my career, I would certainly try to keep up on current
    projects/products/information - whatever was relevant - to make
    my re-entry into the workforce easier for ME (not just for the company,
    although that's a nice side-benefit).  
    
    -Jody
    

    Yah, one of my colleagues here just took up a product management job
    before she went out to have her (2nd) kid.  She's keeping up from home. 
    
    On the other hand, it might be that her management wouldn't give her a
    machine to use at home.  From whatever I hear about the Field, that's
    not uncommon, and would certainly put the skids under any ambition the
    woman might have. 

    						=maggie

A couple of opinions. 

I think the main point about the "Mommy Track" article is that women are
becoming an important part of the labor force and that it is to
corporations advantage to get the most out of thier women workers. To do
this they must change to better meet the needs of women. 

In the case of the field women who took time off to have children, and then
could not keep up technically etc. Granted there are things that she could
of done to keep up better, though I suspect that it is pretty difficult given
having a new baby on the scene. I also suspect there are things that the
company could of done to make the transistion easier for her and for her
co-workers. How much support did she really recieve? I wasn't there so I
don't know but it is a question I have.


On how to change the mindset of men. I think in the last few years we as a
soceity have devalued the "work of rearing children". If that is the case
(my opinion - not based on studies) then it is no wonder that men are not
jumping at the chance to take that role.

So I think we need to start showing the value and benefits of being the
primary child care person. I think women, in general, develop closer
and better bonded relationshps with there children because they spend
time as primary care giver.

My husband and I don't have children yet, but we would like to and have talked
a lot about it. When the time comes we will probably both take time off
(2 or 3 months) consecutively. I have told my husband that I would like him
to have the experience of total child care, because I don't want him to
miss out on the parent-child bonding. He agrees.

To change the mindset of men we need to make taking care of kids something
valued in our society. Given value I think men will want to share in that
value.

My thoughts for now,

Muggsie

    One thing that would go a long way toward changing the "woman is
    the mommy" mindset is a change in the perception of corporate
    management.  Given the new policies being implemented by companies,
    allowing paternity as well as maternity leave, etc. I believe the
    change in attitudes will follow, abeit painfully slowly.
    
    Digital, for example, has implemented a policy of LOA available to
    either new fathers or mothers.  My husband and I both work for Digital.
    Do I believe the males I work with would resent my taking a maternity
    leave if I had a child?  Not for a minute; they'd expect it.  Am I
    convinced my husband's career would suffer, and management would
    perceive a lack of commitment to Digital if he did the same thing? You
    better believe it! As long as that attitude exists, women will carry
    primary responsibility for childcare in the minds of Corporate America. 
    
    RE: .13
    
  >>Within one year she took 3-4 months off to have a child.
    
    If she had had the option of returning to work part-time (with an
    appropriate reduction in salary), it's entirely possible she wouldn't
    have missed 3 - 4 months. 
    
  >>Upon her return she received, you guessed it, different accounts.
    
    How is that different from our normal practice of re-assigning the
    accounts of the great majority of salespeople every July?  No sarcasm
    intended; I'm totally serious.
    
  >>Does a person who is either gone or 'catching up' deserve the same
  >>remuneration as someone who is present and productive?
    
    In many if not most cases, I'd bet the woman doesn't *expect* or even
    *want* the same remuneration.  Because no cut in {salary, benefits,
    etc.} means no cut in hours and responsibility ... and there we go
    right back into the old career/family conflict.  Instead of "catching
    up" being viewed as an acceptable state in which an employee receives
    less pay and is allowed to be less productive for a period, it's viewed
    instead as a performance problem. 
    
    The problem is that in the vast majority of companies, the woman has
    two choices:  dead-end or at least seriously damage her career in favor
    of her family, or put less effort into her family than she's
    comfortable with in order to maintain her upward career mobility.
    There is no in-between. 
    
  >>What about the increased work load of those who have to shoulder an
  >>extra burden at work during the maternity leave 
    
    In many cases I'll bet the extra burden of breaking in a new employee
    would be at least as great if not more so than the burden of keeping
    things moving while a contributing, productive employee is out of work
    for a period of time.  And *if* that employee were allowed to return to
    work earlier on a part-time basis, or by sharing her job with another
    person for a period, then the burden would certainly be no more than
    the additional workload required while her newly-hired replacement
    comes up to speed in the job. 
    
    The ideal (short-term) solution for Corporate America would be for
    women simply not to have babies.  That would eliminate all these
    problems.  Given that such an option does not exist, we need to look
    for ways to minimize the disruption and the additional workload put on
    the existing staff due to maternity leave and family responsibilities,
    and I for one believe those ways can be found.
    
    							Pat

    Re: .19
    
    I see more success in getting support mechanisms for the 'mommy-track'
    if these mechanisms are also available to men.  It seems as though
    men are highly resistant to the idea of women getting 'special
    privileges.'  (Despite the fact that it's hardly a woman's fault
    that women got stuck with the chore of child-bearing instead of
    men.  It's not like there's any blame involved.  The situation exists
    and it has to be dealt with.  In a way, it's rather odd that men
    could complain about women getting special privileges because of
    child-bearing, yet they're the ones who cut themselves out of the
    role of primary parent by making women the default child-rearer.)
    
    And of course it would be absolutely wonderful if men actually took
    advantage of these support mechanisms.  Even if it's not common
    yet, it's at least heard-of.  Hopefully it will get more heard-of
    in the future.

  > But what of some other coworker who has no family and chooses to spend
  > every spare moment working for DEC or whatever idealized company we may
  > discuss?  Shouldn't that person (assuming they over-achieve) be
  > entitled to the big pay raises or choice of best projects or next
  > promotion? 
    
    I agree with what you're saying.  Anyone, regardless of marital or
    family status, who puts in {more, harder, smarter} work than his/her
    co-workers should reap rewards proportionately.  In an ideal world,
    that means single people and married-no-kids people would generally be
    more successful than those who choose to divide their loyalty between
    employer and family.  Realistically, in today's culture, it means that
    single people, married-no-kids people, and married MEN with families
    can generally be more successful than WOMEN who choose to have
    families.  This is because WOMEN are the ones who must divide their
    loyalty between employer and family, not both genders. 
        
    In the ideal world I mentioned, a man who chooses to take paternity
    leave would experience exactly the same effect on his career as a woman
    who takes maternity leave.  In today's business environment (I believe)
    a man's career suffers far more than a woman's, because LOA is
    *expected* of a mother, while it is not expected of a father.
    
    This attitude encourages the situation I've described in the first
    paragraph, since many men are understandably reluctant to take the
    career hit that comes with assuming equal responsibility for the
    family, particularly when their wives can assume the family
    responsibility with less negative impact on their careers. 
    
    							Pat
    

RE: .13:

>	          Does a person who is either gone or 'catching up'       
>  deserve the same remuneration as someone who is present and productive? 
>  What about the increased work load of those who have to shoulder an     
>  extra burden at work during the maternity leave ?  This is a situation  
>  that no job-sharing or part-time arrangement can solve, IMO.            

and RE .20

>    Your suggestion that men should also take "parental" leave rather
>    than just women taking maternal leave AND NOT BE PENALIZED is 0K
>    as far as it goes ...  But what of some other coworker who has no
>    family and chooses to spend every spare moment working for DEC or
>    whatever idealized company we may discuss?  Shouldn't that person
>    (assuming they over-achieve) be entitled to the big pay raises or
>    choice of best projects or next promotion?  Women with children
>    and men with family or active social lives would then be 'average'
>    and would be beaten out by the fast-track people working 60 hours.


        People who take time off don't get (nor do they expect) the same
        renumeration or promotions as those who work long hours and
        never take any leaves.  During a leave of absence, your career
        is put on hold.  Your next review is moved out by the amount of
	time you were away.  Not only that, you know that you will most
	likely take a further hit by not staying current in your field.
	People expect this and it is fair.  There's nothing wrong with
	being 'average' if the average is respected and appreciated.

	Be careful though in assuming the person that works long hours
	will necessarily be more valuable than the person who works 40
	hours with occasional time off for family matters.  It's the
	quality of the person that matters.  I've had people work for me
	who spent an inordinate amount of time at work yet achieved less
	than one hour of another's time.  Also, often times a part-time
	person is more aware of their limited time at work and is more
	effective in utilizing that time.  When you give people
	flexibility in their hours, they more than pay you back by
	giving of their own time during crisis.

        Now, the organization that puts extra burdens on employees when
        one of the group is away is an obviously badly managed group.
        Especially in cases of maternity leaves, a manager has plenty of
        notice that a leave of absence is going to occur.  Digital has
        got to change the headcount criteria that keeps groups
        understaffed, and managers have to know how to prioritize tasks
        and drop some if they don't have the resources to accomplish it.

	...Karen 

    In today's Boston Globe on the Opinion pages of the business section
    is a cartoon. It shows Felice Schwartz tied to a railroad track
    (labeled 'The Mommy Track') while a locomotive labeled Feminists
    bears down on her. The cartoon has her saying "Did you even READ
    my article??!"
    
    Bonnie

    I have a number of thoughts after reading through the past 24 
    replies, so excuse any sense of disconnect through this reply...
    
    I read the HBR article and have mixed feelings about being
    placed in a category like that. I am afraid that it may become
    another excuse for those who opt not to take women seriously in
    terms of dedication to work or job commitment. I also find it
    offensive that women continue to be viewed as the sole responsible
    party for child rearing. I commend .9 for his direct approach and
    taking-to-task of his manager. 
    
    I've also seen the Business Week article and although I applaud
    the publicity of the difficulties and reality of juggling family
    and career, I agree with an earlier reply that this type of article
    tends to offer the impression that Digital is proactively encouraging
    and/or supporting part-time and flex-time working arrangements.
    To the contrary, I find it disheartening that Digital continues
    to deal with part-time/flex-time on a case by case basis, based
    on the discretion of the manager. Moreover, moving from one group
    to another while working part-time is often impossible, and flex-time
    has to be renegotiated with each change of manager. There are clearly
    some mixed messages within Digital, and particularly when there
    continues to be no clearly stated policy.
    
    I feel compelled to add here that I am fortunate in working for
    a manager who allows me to work a modified flex-time arrangement.
    My concern is when and if a reorg occurs (very common in Digital,
    we all know) that I might end up working for someone not as supportive.
    
    Lastly, I wanted to comment on the note regarding the sales rep
    who had 2 children and did not keep abreast of technical changes.
    I had a child last summer and made a conscious effort during my
    maternity and parental leave to keep up with my mail. That was my
    choice -- Digital has a written policy that employees on leave are
    not to be working electronically from home. My manager and I left
    it up to me, but I knew that keeping up would only help when I came
    back to work.
    
    Sigh, none of this is easy stuff. I welcome all the articles, however
    controversial, because at least they get the subject out in the
    open and will push the issues of family and working to the forefront.
    
    --Lynn
    

This note has been copied from the parenting file with the permission
    of the person that entered it in the file. If you wish to read
    the discussion that is on going in regard to this topic in parenting
    the 7 key on your keypad will add parenting to your notebook.
    
    Bonnie
    
               <<< TERZA::DISK$ACCESS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]PARENTING.NOTE;6 >>>
                                 -< Parenting >-
================================================================================
Note 1079.6                     The Mommy Track?                          6 of 9
BARTLE::NELSONK                                     157 lines  22-MAR-1989 07:25
                       -< Schwartz defends her analysis >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following appeared in the Business section of the Boston Globe on
    Wednesday, March 15.  In it, Schwartz defends her analysis of women
    in corporations.
    
    The next reply is an article, "Working Parents Need Time," by
    John MacKenna, a copy editor at the Beverly Times.  He presents
    one _father's_ point of view.
    
    "Misunderstood?
       "Schwartz defends her analysis of women in corporations"
    
    [Reprinted without permission from the Boston Globe]
    
    The woman who triggered an avalanche of controversy about women
    on "the mommy track" says she has been misunderstood.
    
    Felice N. Schwartz, president of Catalyst, a nonprofit group in
    New York that fosters women's development in corporations, says
    her article in the January-February issue of "Harvard Business Review"
    was designed to grab the attention of corporations.
    
    "What I'm urging them to do is remember to look at women and to
    identify them early on so they can give them the same kind of lateral
    experience [as men]," Schwartz says.
    
    Schwartz, a feminist who fought for women's rights long before the
    movement became popular (Editor's note:  THIS IS TRUE!!), says women
    managers cost more to employ than men becaue many women get off
    the fast track to have children and companies often respond by letting
    women plateau when they return.
    
    Schwartz identified two groups of women: career-primary women and
    career-and-family women.  Companies, she said, need to recognize
    that these two groups of women exist and give them the necessary
    supports to succeed.
    
    "Smart, competitive career-primary women are effective managers
    and serve as beacons for the younger women companies need.
    Career-and-family women, on the other hand, are willing to trade
    ambition for the flexibility to raise their families," Schwartz
    wrote.  "Opportunity, flexibility and family support are the keys
    to retaining the best women and eliminating the extra cost of employing
    them."
    
    That sparked a wave of criticism by feminists and by specialists
    on work and family issues who charge Schwartz is betraying the women's
    movement and making children a women's issue.
    
    Yesterday {March 14} Schwartz spoke with The Boston Globe in a
    telephone interview from Albany, N.Y., where she was attending a
    board meeting of the Business Council of New York State.
    
    Q:  Do you think you've been misunderstood?
    A:  Absolutely.  In the last week, certainly by women.  I consider
        myself an ally, a partner, a member of the same team.  But i
        understand the corporation and where it is, and I don't think
        they do, and, therefore, have the confidence that I do -- that
        if the problems are exposed, they wil be addressed.
    
    Q:  Your critics say your article creates two classes of women --
        the A team of child-free women and the B team of mommies.
    A:  I don't believe in a mommy track or in a daddy track. But I
        think there should be a serious alternative for men as well
        as women who want to take time out or stay at lower levels.
    
    Q:  So if you're not saying there are two classes of women managers
        who should be treated accordingly, what was the intent of your
        message?
    A:  I'm trying to talk to corporations.  I identify two foci.  I'm
        saying: These are the two things you have to understand because
        if you understand them, you can address any woman.  Women place
        themselves at various points along that spectrum and they also
        change in the course of their lives.  There is a fluid motion.
    
    Q:  So you stand by everything you said?
    A:  Absolutely.  If I did it over, I would add another paragraph.
        I would say that women are all along that broad spectrum.  But
        for the corporation that needs to understand them and wants
        to retain them, the two names of the game are:  Change the
        environment, make it more possible for women to be productive.
        Respond to their family needs so they won't leave or plateau.
    
    Q:  Are yu saying that childless women should be promoted on the
        fast track and mothers should be content to make tradeoffs
        and settle in middle management?
    A:  I am definitely not saying that.  The mother of seven could
        be gung-ho and career-focused.  And a woman who is childless
        could be lacking in any desire to make it beyond a very low
        level.  It is not a function of whether or not she has a child.
        It is a function of whether or not she has the ability and the
        degree to which she wants to commit herself to her career and
        her employer.
    
    Q:  You say that women managers are more expensive to employ than
        men because women have a higher turnover rate and are more
        likely to plateau or interrupt their careers.  How did you 
        document that?
    A:  This was an essay that I was invited to do by the Harvard
        Business Review based on my 27 years of working to expand
        career options.  This article was not based on any studies
        It was a cumulative, evolving view of mine.
    
    Q:  You mention studies by two companies to document your thesis.
        One showed that the turnover rate among women managers is
        2-1/2 times greater than among male managers.  The other found
        that more than half of the women on maternity leave return later
        than promised or not at all.  Who were those corporations?
    A:  That's proprietary information.  I just chose to say that because
        it certainly is attention-grabbing and important.  I don't claim
        that is going to be the average.
    
        But we have undertaken for three companies -- J&J (I assume
        she means Johnson & Johnson), Colgate-Palmolive, and Pitney
        Bowes -- a study of their experience with maternity leave.
        We hope to involve a dozen companies in that kind of documentation.
        We will presnt the findings generically with our recommendatins.
    
    Q:  Why are women more expensive to employ?
    A:  The corporate environment, an environment created for men and
        by men, is still more difficult for women to navigate and
        function in.  As women move up, they are more and more in the
        minority.  There is more psychic drain.  It is more difficult
        to be freely productive.
    
    Q:  Why does it help the bottom line for companies to be responsive
        to women's needs?
    A:  When [women] bump into corporate policies not yet fully responsive
        to their needs, they feel overwhelmed.  They can plateau or
        companies can move them to less aggressive jobs, in which case
        the company loses tremendously.  By the time a woman has a child
        these days -- when the average age for the first birth of college
        graduates is 31 -- they've made a big investment.  If they lose
        her or she plateaus, that's a big loss to the company.
    
    Q:  Why do you think you've generated so much criticism?
    A:  The women in the vanguard of this are worried about my saying
        women cost more.  If you say they cost more, then companies
        are going to disregard them.  That's tommyrot.
    
        The fact is they are just not aware of the current reality
        which is because of the demographics changes....Companies
        want to know how to respond.
    
    Q:  How have companies reacted to your article?
    A:  I've gotten an enormous number of letters.  I'm always traveling
        and talking to leaders.  The comments I get are anywhere from
        "This is a terrific piece" to "This is a turning point.  You've
        put the issues on the table...and you pointed out what can be
        done."
    
    Q:  Are male CEOs using this as an excuse not to promote women?
    A:  I'm getting that from a small group of women.  I know companies
        are not looking for excuses not to promote women.  They're looking
        for understanding on how to retain them and move them up.  The
        best impetus for change is self-interest.  And it is in the
        self-interest of business today to develop and retain women.
    

           <<< TERZA::DISK$ACCESS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]PARENTING.NOTE;6 >>>
                                 -< Parenting >-
================================================================================
Note 1079.7                     The Mommy Track?                          7 of 9
BARTLE::NELSONK                                     116 lines  22-MAR-1989 07:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Working parents need time"
    		by John MacKenna
    
    [reprinted without permission from the Beverly Times, March 21,
    1989]
    
    In today's parlance, I'm on "the daddy track."
    
    In the middle of every weekday afternoon, I drop what I'm doing
    at work and turn into a parent.  I pick up my son at day care, and
    begin the second part of my day.
    
    While many of my colleagues are hammering the afternoon away at
    their keyboards, I can be found at the park, in the backyard or
    in front of the television set watching Sesame Street with my
    2-1/2-year-old companion, Duncan.
    
    In business circles, there is a new expression to describe working
    mothers -- "the mommy track."
    
    But they seem to have forgotten the working fathers who are on the
    "daddy track."
    
    The term "mommy track" was inspired inadvertently by Felice N.
    Schwartz, a consultant on women in the workplace.  She created a
    flap when she suggested in a Harvard Business REview story that
    corporations should categorize its women employees as either "career
    primary" or "career-and-family."
    
    According to Schwartz, corporations should give the "career primary"
    women every opportunity to climb the corporate ladder alongside
    their male counterparts, and recognize that the "career-and-family"
    types probably don't have that ambition.  Her critics dubbed the
    second category "the mommy track."
    
    I have no qualms with Schwartz's categories.  Most working adults
    I know fit fairly easily into one or the other category.
    
    But I do resent the categorization being limited to women.  These
    days, men are riding the fence between work and family as well.
    
    I also resent employers (happily, not mine) who don't acknowledge
    the responsibilities facing working fathers.
    
    A lot of working men can't fit the "career primary" category if
    they want to.  A two-income household with young children simply
    doesn't leave time for a full-bore career.
    
    My wife and I were both hard-core working types until our son, Duncan,
    was born in 1986.  Long before taking his first step, he put his
    foot down on our careers.
    
    Donna, a lawyer, took three months off after the birth, then returned
    to work, leaving Duncan in the care of a full-time babysitter.
    
    Our life style became frantic.  All our waking hours were filled
    with responsibilities.  If we weren't working, we were tending to
    Duncan or keeping up the house.  We had little time with our son,
    less time with each other and no time to ourselves.
    
    The house was a mess.  The laundry piled up until the underwear
    drawer was empty. Our friends never heard from us.
    
    We lived this glamorous fast-lane lifestyle for about two months
    before realizing something had to give.
    
    Our solution was fairly radical.  I left my job to care for Duncan,
    and remained unemployed for about 18 months.  I'm working again
    now, but at a lower level with a limited schedule.  I hope to have
    my career in high gear again some day, but for now I am cruising
    along happily on "the daddy track."
    
    I am lucky to be working for a company where family is a high priority.
     My two direct superiors both have children in diapers.  When I
    tell them I have to take care of something at home, they don't question
    my dedication.
    
    But I've seen the other side.  A former boss of mine (who no longer
    works here) criticized me in an evaluation for being excessively
    concerned about domestic matters.
    
    Unfortunately there are a lot of stinkers like that out there --
    bosses who believe we should live to work, and who interpret attention
    to home life as a slight to them and the company.
    
    The fact of the matter is working parents have more responsibility
    than they can handle.  If they do everything the boss wants, they
    don't see enough of their family.  If they give their family the
    attention it deserves, they can't work as hard as single people.
    
    If the boss doesn't understand the situation and make some allowances,
    the parent willl suffer, either with resentment at home, disdain
    at work or both.
    
    It is unfortunate that many parents lose respect and self-esteem
    because people regard them as undedicated.  They may be less
    single-minded in their devotion to work, but it is only because
    they have other concerns of greater importance.
    
    My wife and I are both dedicated workers, but we do not work the
    long hours that some of our colleagues do.  And at various times
    we have each paid the price, losing the esteem of our employers
    because we wouldn't "go the extra mile."
    
    I do not mean to come down hard on the middle managers of the world,
    for they have to produce results for their masters.  It's hard for
    them to be uynderstanding when their own careers may be at stake.
    
    The adjustment must come from the top of each company, with the
    owners and presidents recognizing the dilemmas facing today's parents.
     Working parents want to succeed like everyone else, but they need
    some extra time and freedom to raise their families.  And they need
    the faith of their employers in their dedication and ambition.
    
    It's OK to categorize a parent as being on the "career-and-family"
    track.  Just don't hold it against them.

    As a part-time writer with a full-time load who rushes off at 3:00
    to piano lessons, soccer games, doctor's appointments, etc., I have
    found this discussion fascinating.
    
    I am still not sure where I stand on the issue.  I know I am grateful
    for the part-time job I have which allows me to nuture my children.
    It removed an awful weight of guilt.  However, it is still plenty
    hard to do both jobs well, and there is very little time for self.
    
    I also feel a certain amount of resentment that 1) my partner feels
    it impossible to share the responsibility, and 2) there is little
    room for upward movement in a part-time job, regardless of the quality
    or quantity of my work.
    
    I would agree that Felice Schwartz's article and much of this
    discussion are missing the important point that parenting is not the 
    same as mothering.  I am grateful for the few fathers who have raised 
    that concern.  But they are very few.  How do we get from here to
    there?  Will the next generation have a greater understanding or better
    coping skills?
    
    Not the way we are going, I am afraid.  Because the important group
    who are being left out are the children.  What are they learning
    from all this except the sad fact that often no one is willing to
    do the nurturing.  
    
    When I started work three years ago, we had a rough time coping,
    and took some professional counseling.  Part of the message I got
    was that I was carrying most of the burden at home because I would
    not put it down.  I didn't like the message, and I did not wholly
    believe it.  But I put down some of the non-essential parts of the
    burden like picking up the living room, clearing the kitchen sink,
    sorting the junk mail and newspapers, etc.  Guess what?  No one
    picked it up.  It bothers me occassionally, and when it is time
    to pay the bills I sort the papers so I won't miss any.  It bothers
    the rest of the family a lot, and they complain, but they don't do
    anything to change things.
    
    The point is not to complain, but to underline the fact that the
    nurturing of children is not something that a working mother can
    put down in the hope that the other parent, or a member of the extended
    family, or a school will pick it up.  No one will.  And while I
    can live with a messed up house, I can not live with messed up kids.
    
    So where does that leave us?  I can identify with Pat Schoeder's
    concern that this may be the beginning of the slippery slope and
    may give corporations a chance to stop making progress.  But I can't
    sacrifice my kids.  And I already have grave fears that one of the
    major problems of the next generation will be a lack of nurturing
    taught by this generation.  On the other hand, who is teaching our
    children that parenting is a shared responsibility?  I guess by
    falling into the Mommy track I am not.  We are damned if we
    do and damned if we don't.  Or rather, our kids are.
    
    Lyn                                            

    I'm still bothered by the whole "Mommy track" (or should I call it
    "Parent track"?) concept.  It still feels like it institutionalizes the
    same old double standard we have fought for so long: if your manager,
    or your manager's manager, thinks you even might come to have some day
    responsibilities outside of work, your career is put on a low simmer -
    and the only thing you can do about it, almost always, is to change
    bosses - no amount of hard work will convince these head-in-the-sand
    folks any differently!  If a woman gets married, or even dates, or
    (heaven knows) if she gets pregnant, or if she indicates that she has
    responsibilities toward her elderly parents or handicapped siblings,
    she will often hold her current job forever, with no possibility for
    advancement unless she transfers, even if she puts in as much or more
    effort as anyone else.  Believe me, I know - and it is really
    frustrating!  I don't work for that group anymore, but when I did, I
    used to come home (at 7 pm or later - I hardly ever have to work that
    late anymore in my better group!) and rant and rave at my husband about
    why can't these people recognize the contributions of some of the folks
    who worked for them.  I used to get really angry about being
    side-tracked while other people were fast-tracked - almost always men.
    Of course, the same side-tracking was happening to the rare men who
    made it obvious that they had outside interests, but the women were
    *assumed* to have outside interests, and very few were treated as
    serious workers no matter how much they contributed.
    
    I'm lucky to be out of that situation, but I wasted years of my career
    in this holding-pattern, and my career growth and salary still suffer
    from it.  I don't want to see a sanctioned "side-track" for anyone that
    is perceived as possibly having commitments outside of work - that's
    what we have now!  And it stinks!  What is needed instead is more
    recognition that most people's normal lives include responsibilities
    both on and off the job, and more recognition from each other that we
    all share these outside-work responsibilities.  No one household member
    should get stuck with all the chores anymore than one member of a team
    at work should get stuck with all the nasty jobs.  And no boss should
    assume that a woman belongs in the no-growth "mommy/parent track" just
    because of her sex - or for any other reason, including being a parent.
    People need to be treated as individuals.
    
    /Charlotte
    
    Sorry this came out sounding more "fierce" than I usually feel - it's a
    hot button of mine, and I am in a gloomy mood today anyhow.
                                             

    Interesting article in the current Fortune on a similar topic. 
    Unfortunately, I don't have it with me, so I can't give the title,
    but it relates to the differences between the 1950's 'man in the
    gray flannel suit' and today's career professional achievers.  The
    point that stood out to me was the *difference* in the average work
    week between baby boomers and their fathers.  Fathers generally
    put in a 45 - 50 hour week MAX -- many succeeded on a 40 hour week.
     Baby boomers of today, in positions of similar responsibility and
    authority, commonly put in a 60 to 80 hour week.  They feel that
    it is competitively necessary to get ahead in the business world,
    which is much faster paced and has a far different style than that
    of the 1950's and '60's.
    
    If the statistics are true (and I don't doubt them), it raises very
    serious questions for how *anyone* can parent on any level, or have
    any outside of work interests, and still succeed.  How in the world
    can we encourage people to have a sane definition of what a full-time
    professional job requires?
    
    Alison

    Re: .29
    
    >thinks you even might come to have some day responsibilities outside
    >of work ... responsibilities toward her elderly parents
    
    Demographics should force a change in attitudes.  As the baby-boom
    generation ages, more and more people will have elderly parents
    to care for.  If businesses leave such people stagnating, they will
    in turn stagnate.

    
    Rest assured that this won't hold back the Japanese, Koreans,
    or Taiwanese.
    
    US buisnesses can become socially innovative only if they have a
    competitive edge. I don't see us having such an edge now or
    in the near future.

      The Frank and Earnest cartoon has the last laugh. From yesterday's
      Colorado Spring's Gazzett Telegraph.

      "I couldn't decide whether I wanted to be on the fast track or the
      slow track, so I've just been hanging around the station."

      liesl

    Did anyone catch the "FastTrack, Inc." cartoons the last couple of
    days?  Rose Trellis (the "queen bee" boss) informed Wendy, the tough
    cookie career woman who has just returned from maternity leave (after a
    hilarious series of cartoons of trying to hire a good day care
    provider) that she was being transferred to the "mommy track".  This
    turns out to be Wendy roped to a railroad track, with Rose Trellis
    running the locomotive, which has a bunch of trophies of pregnant women
    painted on the side (all the other women whose careers Rose Trellis has
    ruined this way).  Wendy is figuring that she has a tough challenge
    ahead!
    
    Too bad this is only too true....!
    
    /Charlotte

Those Costly 'Good Old Boys'
	From The New York Times [I don't have the date - I think this is the
				 NYT editorial mentioned in .0]
by Audrey Freedman

A short time ago, an article in the Harvard Business Review enraged some and
satisfied others by suggesting that women who want families should opt for a
modified business career - that is, for second-class status and salaries. It
began with the assertion that it is more expensive for a corporation to employ
women than men, because women may divide their attention between family and
career. This second-class status has become know as "The Mommy Track".

The case for the Mommy Track has indeed been made, but only through a cost
analysis that is itself gender-biased.

It is undeniable, of course, that women, not men, take pregnancy leaves. It is
also undeniable that women are the primary nurturers in a family. They are the
most likely to be responsible for the care and support of children, as well as
their elderly parents. If we stop there, the Mommy Trackers have unquestionably
shown that women in business are more costly than men.

But the built-in bias of that analysis is the failure to account for far more
costly drains on corporate productivity from behavior that is more
characteristic of men than of women.

For example, men are more likely to be heavy users of alcohol. In 1985, 11.9
million men were classified as alcohol abusers as compared with 5.7 million
women. Forty-three percent of men were classified as moderate-to-heavy
drinkers; 18 percent of women were.

This gender-related habit causes businesses to suffer excessive medical costs,
serious performance losses and productivity drains. Yet the male-dominated
corporate hierarchy most often chooses to ignore these "good old boy" habits.

In fact, the higher up the drinker is, the more likely that there will be a
polite cover-up. Subordinates take care to handle the problem caused by the
boss's deteriorating performance. Unless a catastrophe occurs, toleration
prevails in the executive setting no less than at the country club.

Drug abuse among the fast-movers of Wall Street seems to be understood as a
normal response to the pressures of taking risks with other people's money. The
consequences in loss of judgment are tolerated. They are not calculated as a
male-related cost of business.

Apart from the performance problems at high levels, alcohol and drug abuse
causes costly accidents. We never think of them, however, as a risk primarily
associated with male employees. Yet, how many maternity leaves could Exxon have
funded with the billions of dollars that were lost because the captain of the
Valdez was drunk?

In our culture, lawlessness and violence are found far more often among men
than women. The statistics on criminals and prison population are obvious; yet
we seem to be unable to recognize this a primarily male behavior. 

More pointedly, we do not seem to be able to figure out that some of this
lawlessness occurs in the corporate setting. Corporate fraud is widely
condemned. But we never notice that there is one characteristic that criminals,
violent individuals and corporate felons share: their maleness.

Another heavy but ignored cost of employing men is their greater inclination to
engage in destructive struggles for control. Corporate takeover battles waste
billions of dollars in capital and productive energy. Or think of the macho
battle between union officers and Frank Lorenzo. At this point in the struggle
for "victory", Eastern Airlines is ruined: Jobs are lost, capital is wasted,
equipment unused and a service is being destroyed. Yet the eight-year-old boys
continue to fight over who is king of the mountain.

Male children are more likely to be socialized to "prevail" over other males.
That may be useful in hand-to-hand combat or in wartime. But it is an
enormously costly and destructive way to organized our economy and carry out
production. Corporate takeovers seem often to represent an abstract
battlefield. No one names these corporate struggles correctly: street fights.

A top executive of a major airline once commented to me that his company's
greatest problem is machismo in the cockpit - pilots and copilots fighting over
the controls. There is an obvious solution: Hire pilots from that half of the
population that is less susceptible to the attacks of rage that afflict macho
males.

My modest suggestion is that corporations reconsider their easy acceptance of
the proposition that it is more costly to employ women than men. And in this
reconsideration, companies might give deeper thought to the actual costs
associated with behavior that society has accepted or even induced among men.

It then might occur to management that it could have saved a great deal if
tanker captains and chief executives were women. The possibilities for a
constructive effect on our economic life are boundless.

     It's all true. Promote women; they are, as a class, better able to do
    the high level stuff (and the medium and low level stuff). The cost of
    "the mommy track" can more than be made up by the increased performance
    and efficiency.
    
     As for the men, put them in places where they can't cause any trouble,
    like on a fishing boat. I volunteer to be the first. :-)
    
     The Doctah

>    Another heavy but ignored cost of employing men is their greater
>    inclination to engage in destructive struggles for control.
>    Corporate takeover battles waste billions of dollars in capital
>    and productive energy. 

    Let's be fair here -- this could also be because there are very
    few women in positions of enough power to engage in this kind of
    struggle. 
    
    I suggest an experiment.  
    
    Let a few of us have control of major corporations.  Give us
    control over budgets and policy.  And see what happens.
    
    I volunteer to be the first :)
    
    --bonnie

    I read the Business Week Article when it came out and would like to
    have some coworkers read it (after a debate on the value of
    job-sharing) but I cannot remember which issue it was in.  Can anyone
    help me?  I've read all 37 notes and can't find it mentioned.  Thanks!