Myth #1: An invisible hand in the market dictates that work must be inflexible, brutish, and long
"Revolving Women" by John Fraissinet
In 2003, a now infamous article titled “The Opt-Out Revolution” appeared in New York Times Magazine. In it, author Lisa Belkin concluded that, “women are rejecting the workplace.” Having interviewed one too many female MBAs turned stay-at-home-moms, Belkin argued that women just don’t want to rule the world from the tops of the corporate ladder. Since then a deluge of opinions on the topic has appeared in every crevice of popular media. There were “Mommy Wars” and all sorts of unpleasantness. The problem with the media brouhaha—obscured by Blackberry vs. baby formula mud-slinging—is that too little of it is based on substantive research.
Enter Pamela Stone, a sociology professor at Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center in New York City. In 2008, Stone published Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home (University of California Press) to academic and popular acclaim. Based on in-depth interviews with married moms who quit their high-status jobs, Stone’s work is a welcome antidote to years of bickering about professional women and the workplace.
We caught up with Stone in New York to discuss her book. We don’t want to overwhelm you with too much brilliance all at once, so we’ll be posting our conversation with Stone in four parts. In Part One, Stone debunks common myths about the workplace and provides some refreshingly pragmatic and recession-friendly advice on how to improve it.
Myth #1: An invisible hand in the market dictates that work must be inflexible, brutish, and long.
Pamela Stone: Speaking now, in this economic crisis, it gets harder and harder to argue that there is an incentive for businesses to implement flexible policies. That said, every single study that has ever been done has shown that the introduction of workplace flexibility and new work arrangements result in increased productivity, increased retention, and less turnover. So, in fact, even in today’s economy, there is still a bottom line argument that can be made for flexibility.
I think that employers are often resistant to hearing this evidence because our current models are so heavily entrenched that a lot of people, workers included, tend to mystify their work processes. They think that there is some sort of invisible hand in the market that drives them, not understanding that there is no invisible hand other than our own.
The problem is that we are so used to a “go it alone” kind of market-driven system in the US that we have no idea that in other, comparable countries people consider these things to be rights. It is completely alien to us to think that we have a right to parental leave. Or that we have a right to a certain number of vacation or personal days. The hope is that people will realize that it is not their individual problem to solve, but that it is a collective problem that springs from the enormous mismatch between the institution of the workplace and the reality of working families today.
What can be done?
Nix the long-hour work culture.
Pamela Stone: There is almost a glorification in some occupational cultures, especially managers and professionals, of working to the extreme. Frankly it is macho. These cultures become self-sustaining.
In the old days you’d hear people say things like “that’s not women’s work, I can’t see a woman doing that.” Well, everybody knows that they can’t say that anymore, even if they think it. But what they can do is make the demands of these jobs so great that it is impossible for anyone who has childcare responsibilities to do them. You replace essentialist stereotypes with the so-called “time demands” of these self-important jobs, and you accomplish the same thing. It is all about the construction of jobs and the glorification of crazy time demands.
Small changes have a big impact.
Pamela Stone: What really came out vividly in my interviews for the book is not that these women [who quit their jobs] needed some major change. Rather, they often needed like one day of telecommuting a month or a week. Often it is changes around the margin that make a huge difference between being able to make it all work and not. So we do have to re-imagine work, in particular getting rid of this insane long-hour culture, but I also think that we have to realize how much we can do around the margin and be open to making small changes.
Reform part-time work.
Pamela Stone: I think for the foreseeable future it is tough to deny gender roles. I don’t expect the next generation to become 50/50, even if they do think in more egalitarian ways than previous generations. I think women are still going to be the ones to take on more of the family responsibility and so they are still going to be the ones who ask for flexible work arrangements to a greater extent than men. Believing that to be the reality, and being pragmatic about it, I think that we need to be on guard about making sure that the penalty to part-time work is as minimal as possible or completely disappears.
—
Come back tomorrow for Myth #2: Most women who quit their jobs do so because they choose motherhood over career success. Can’t wait? Check out Stone’s website and book.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
She calls it accurately: U.S. employers enjoy a degree of power over their workers sadly unusual among other developed nations. Workers here, no matter how educated or well-compensated, are socialized to be grateful for a job, regardless of its conditions. How will things change unless workers even know there are options (i.e. learning how other nations handle these issues and how their governments negotiate such arrangements with employers)?
Too often, the macho ideal wins out, sneering at such European workplace values as “socialism” while many of us remain envious of legislated, paid vacation, sick leave, family and maternity leave.
Well, I am not sure I agree with the last comment or some findings for one reason. You say essentially that our country treats its workers worse than other countries. This is simply not true and easily proved. Our standard of living is pretty high–even now during these tough times.
And speaking of tough times, one of the things making them tougher is higher taxes, etc. It’s a vicious circle. “The penalty for part time work”? There is no penalty–there is simply pay for what one does. The market does indeed–or at least should–decide. If it doesn’t, who does? Me? You? The President? That invites collusion, collaboration, criminality and corruption.
No–one area that you got absolutely right is this: There are consequences for the decisions we make. If we decide to “go corporate” and live that life, there’s a price to pay–and benefits to reap. The same is true if we do not choose the corporate ladder. Your article seems to suggest that there is some way of making someone else responsible for our actions. And I suppose there is. But look at France’s and Germany’s unemployment rates even during good years–they are much higher than the U.S. Why? No innovation, no incentive…no market economics–or rather, fewer market economic policies.
Just food for thought.
You say our country doesn’t treat workers worse than other countries. How so? If workers here aren’t entitled to sick days, vacation, or parental leave, the way they are in other countries, how is it that we’re not being treated worse?
Same thing goes for our “high” living standards. I suppose it depends on what you view as high living standards. The ability to purchase more cheap stuff? OR actually being able to take and enjoy 4 weeks of vacation, the ability to take several months off to take care of a new born baby, the freedom not to worry about health care if you lose your job.
As far as unemployment, consider this article and graph in the New York Times, which supports the claim that the US unemployment rate may soon go above Europe’s: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/business/economy/23charts.html?_r=1.
- Liz
In response to another comment. See in context »One more note: in terms of penalties for part-time work, it is not the issue of compensation that is of primary concern, but of the “tracking” that occurs when one works part-time– even if it is only for a short time during one’s professional career. Workers who work part-time are often excluded from a partnership track, for instance. One alternative could be to have 14 instead of 7 years on a partnership track for a part-timer.
The main issue is that part-time shouldn’t have to dead-end your career, the way it now does. Many women who need to work part-time for a period of time because they are still the ones to shoulder the majority of caregiving responsibilities suffer severe penalties when it comes to their career in the future.
Finally: as a Swede, I must say that a lack of European innovation is another myth. Entrepreneurship is well and thriving in socialist Sweden. And, from the interviews that we conducted with young people on both sides of the Atlantic, it actually appears as though the future generation of workers in European countries are as, if not more, inclined to want to start businesses of their own as their American counterparts. Surprising? Perhaps. A lot has changed. Your analysis makes more sense as of two decades ago. A place like Sweden is, today, quite a good place to both live and do business. And its capital, Stockholm, tops economist Richard Florida’s lists on the “creativity index”…
- Astri
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m a long time fan of Pamela Stone and her work. Her point about making changes in the workplace at the margin as opposed to some huge overhaul of how work gets done is spot on.
What we have found in our work with people reentering the workforce after long career breaks, is that definitions are important. For example, if someone tells me they want to return to work “part time,” I always ask them to define what they mean by part time. More often than not, they are referring to face time in the office during business hours; that’s what they need to limit or adjust. Sheer numbers of hours worked are often acceptable to the “part timer” if some of them can be done from home or at odd hours.
Thank you Liz and Astri for your excellent work – both on video and on this blog.
–Carol Fishman Cohen
Co-author, Back on the Career Track
Co-founder, http://www.iRelaunch.com
Carol,
Thank you for your support.
Yes, you are exactly right: so much can depend on changes in the margin. But, in order for people to dare to ask for those kinds of changes, flexible work options need to be de-stigmatized. Unfortunately, some flexible options are– as Pamela Stone also confirmed– “gendered,” which in turn has a negative effect. For instance, working from home is considered more gender neutral while working part-time is seen as “feminine.” And, you guessed it, a “feminine” connotation like that is likely to harm your career (just think of the “mommy track”).
A lot of this hinges on attitudinal change. But if we look at rising generations of workers, who have increasingly egalitarian outlooks in general, those changes may be on the horizon.
Let’s hope so.
Best,
Astri
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] far, Stone has tackled two myths: 1.) An invisible hand in the market dictates that work must be inflexible, brutish, and long, and 2.) Most women who quit their jobs do so because they choose motherhood over career success. [...]
[...] Myth #1: An invisible hand in the market dictates that work must be inflexible, brutish, and long. [...]
Astri and Liz, the challenge will be to get all those new young workers who feel so differently to form an effective lobby, pay some lobbyist bazillions and get them to K Street. There is such tremendous resistance to change and employers retain so much power in the current structure that it will take some serious mass movement to move that needle. No?
Right you are, Caitlin. That’s why Liz and I feel so strongly that creating a discussion about these issues at an early age, and enabling people to be more pro-active about their decision-making, makes all the difference.
We spent one year interviewing over 100 Gen Y:ers in five countries about work-life issues. Most often, our interviewees had never given the topic much actual, practical thought prior to our interview. But as soon as they got to talking it was like opening the flood-gates! American Y:ers were often shocked to learn how limited their options were, especially compared to what is available to their European peers.
It became obvious that balance was very much on the agenda with these young people, but that they had no idea how to advocate or move towards it in their own lives, or for society at large. And a lot of that is due to ignorance about the real implications of the status quo- which is where much of the inherent resistance that you’re talking about comes from.
Yes, employers retain a lot of power, but employers ultimately need qualified employees. What’s more, a lot of research (Pam Stone knows about this as well) shows that flexibility, for instance, is good for the bottom line. We may sound very naive at times, but we’re well aware that changes won’t happen because they’re “right” or “humane,” but because they make business sense.
We’re working to raise awareness about this question and hope Gen Y can, as a generation, get riled up enough to makes some real changes.
- Astri
In response to another comment. See in context »I admire what you’re doing. Really important work.
[...] far, Stone has tackled two myths: 1.) An invisible hand in the market dictates that work must be inflexible, brutish, and long, and 2.) Most women who quit their jobs do so because they choose motherhood over career success. [...]