I started my first job before I'd reached double digits, working in the family business, doing jobs that ranged from mind-numbing to challenging. I started my first business at about age 12, offering private skating lessons at the local rink and later private swimming lessons in people's homes. I got top marks in school from elementary school all the way up to graduating second in my class in my MBA program, while also working part-time, volunteering, and being President of one of the campus clubs.
I chose jobs, not based on the initial salary or job title, but based on the potential for personal and career growth. I raised my hand and offered to solve problems and take on challenges, even especially if it was something I didn't have any direct experience with.I grabbed on to the sum of my immense privilege and my abilities and I leaned in. Hard.
From the time I started my career (i.e. first post-MBA full-time job) at 23 until the time my son was born when I was 29, I went after every opportunity. I sat at the table, I raised my hand, I said "yes, I can do that", and I spoke with authority (even when I felt insecure). Two years into my career, and six months into a new job in a new field, I told my boss that I thought the company needed a new Director and that I should be that Director. She agreed. A couple of years later, I was a Vice President. During the six years from the start of my career until the birth of my first born, I had more than doubled my salary, had a great team working for me, and was respected by my managers, staff, clients, competitors and other people in my network.
I had leaned in, and it had paid off.
Can we be good parents and good workers too?
As you've probably already guessed, this post isn't just about me.
It is about Sheryl Sandberg's book Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead. In the book, Sandberg writes:The ideal worker is defined as someone always available for work, and the 'good mother' is defined as always available to her children.
I had never heard of Sheryl Sandberg when my son was born, nor did I know much about the so called 'mommy wars' that I was about to wade into, but I did know that continuing to climb up the corporate ladder wasn't for me. I didn't want to feel like I was sneaking out early if I wanted to be home for dinner with my family. I didn't want phone calls from my boss at home in the evening to wake the baby. I didn't want to have to ask anyone for permission to attend my child's school play or ask for time off to take my child to a doctor's appointment. This wasn't about living up to corporate or societal expectations, it was about recognizing that I couldn't be the employee I wanted to be, the mother I wanted to be, and the human being I wanted to be. Something had to give.
So, I opted out.
A couple of months into my maternity leave, I contacted the company and I told them that I wouldn't be coming back. I wasn't choosing to stay at home full-time, but I was choosing to chart my own path. I started my own consulting business.
At first, I was nervous. My partner had just started his first post-law-school job, which he wasn't enjoying and where he wasn't being paid the salary he had hoped for. What if no one wanted to use my services? If my business failed, then what? But it turns out I was nervous for nothing. Not only did I have no trouble getting contracts (thanks to the leaning in I'd done before my son was born), but I also didn't have to give a significant chunk of my billings to someone else or to corporate overhead. I could take on as much or as little as I wanted to. I ended up making more money, while taking at least eight weeks of vacation each year.
I rejected the 'ideal worker' expectations. I think the expectation of constant availability or of a bum in a seat from 9 to 5 or 7 to 7 or whatever it might be is counterproductive. I made a decision in my consulting business to take on work that was based on outcomes or deliverables, not based on putting in time. Sure, I would gladly meet with clients, but at a mutually convenient time, not at their beck and call. Sure, I would put in long hours to get work done and meet deadlines, but I got to choose how to allocate that time. I know there are some corporate environments that work like that too, but they are few and far between, so I created one for myself. I probably work more hours in total than the average person in a corporate job, but I also know I take many more days off than they could ever dream of.
This was the only way that I could reconcile the conflict between the ideal worker and the good mother and it turned out to be the best way for so many reasons.
Could I have leaned in anywhere?
A lot of the critique that I've seen of Sanberg's book is that her suggestions are not always realistic. The combination of her privilege, her forward-thinking bosses and work environments, and her seniority at the time she became a mother played a huge role in the success of her tactics. As an example, a junior employee wouldn't have an executive assistant to schedule their last meeting of the day out of the office so that they could go directly home from that meeting and not be seen sneaking out "early" (i.e. in order to be home in time for dinner with the family). A person working a low-wage fast food job wouldn't have many of the luxuries that Sanberg had as she made her choices. Someone without a nanny might not just want to be home for dinner each night, they might need to be home for dinner each night.
Some of us have more choice than others and those choices, combined with privilege, can make a difference in the success of Sanberg's tactics. For example, when I was doing my MBA I had the opportunity to visit the trading floor of a major Canadian bank in London, England. I asked why there were no women on the trading floor. The executive who was showing us around said, "I don't know. I guess it isn't a job that appeals to a lot of women." He went on to acknowledge, but not really apologize for, the misogyny that women in the industry are faced with. I majored in financial management and it would have made sense for me to go into the financial services industry, possibly working on a trading floor somewhere. In fact, I interviewed for jobs in that field. But I chose not to go that route. I wanted to work somewhere where I would be recognized for my abilities, not somewhere where I'd have to wage war against the patriarchy each and every day.
Yes, we need trailblazers, but I didn't feel that I could be that trailblazer and meet my own goals without burning myself out. I needed to choose the environment that offered me the most potential for growth, not the one where I could break down the most barriers. Sandberg also encourages people to go after growth; but again, I think that is a luxury not everyone can afford. Some people have to choose stability over growth, because they don't have a safety net to fall into if the rocket ship comes crashing down.
What about the men?
In the book, Sandberg does an excellent job talking about the double standards in our gendered society. She writes:
And what about men who want to leave the workforce? If we make it too easy for women to drop out of the career marathon, we also make it too hard for men. Just as women feel that they bear the primary responsibility of caring for their children, many men feel that they bear the primary responsibility of supporting their families financially. Their self-worth is tied mainly to their professional success, and they frequently believe they have no choice but to finish that marathon.
She goes on to talk about a team-building exercise at a company retreat where half of the men in the group listed their children as a hobby. "A hobby?", she writes, "For most mothers, kids are not a hobby. Showering is a hobby." Those are just a few examples of the double standard that she raises throughout the book.
She also talks about creating equality in her own home (albeit with the support of a nanny) and encourages other women to seek that equality too. She even discusses research about the importance of involved fathers in the psychological well-being of children and the impact on their cognitive abilities. However, she doesn't seem to transfer that over to her workplace practices. She writes:
At Facebook, I teach managers to encourage women to talk about their plans to have children and help them continue to reach for opportunities.
This, more than anything, is where I took issue with Sandberg's recommendations. Even if we put the legal and human resources implications of that aside (as she does, while noting the risk), my question would be: What about the men? Why, after everything else she said in the book, would she once again assume that only women need to worry about balancing their childrearing plans with their careers? If she wanted to be part of the solution, she would sit down with the men too and help them find a way to be able to pick their child up at daycare while still going for that promotion, instead of just assuming (as most managers do, and as most men do), that the men would just continue playing the 'ideal worker' role, even after their baby is born.
Sandberg herself says:
When a couple announces that they are having a baby, everyone says “Congratulations!” to the man and “Congratulations! What are you planning on doing about work?” to the woman. The broadly held assumption is that raising their child is her responsibility.
It is a valid critique, and a double-standard she is continuing by encouraging women to think about how they'll combine their career with their family, without encouraging men to do the same. Sandberg also notes that men are more likely than women to negotiate compensation, benefits, titles, and other perks. But I wonder if that extends to things like flexible schedules, working from home, part-time work, needing to leave in time to pick the kids up at day care, and more. Are those thing that men negotiate for? Or are those just 'unreasonable demands' that women make?
It isn't just about individuals
Another critique I've heard of Sandberg's book is that it doesn't address the significant structural issues that prevent women from achieving equality in the workplace and in the home. That is a fair point, but to be fair to Sandberg, she recognizes that and addresses it upfront. She argues that we need to address the external obstacles (structural and societal issues) that keep women from reaching their potential, while also addressing the internal issues (i.e. the things that women do to hold themselves back). She is very explicit about the fact that both are important, but that her book is about the latter. From that perspective, I think the book is very good and could be useful to a lot of women in a lot of different work environments, even if it isn't universally applicable or appealing.
I want to hear from you. Did you read Sanberg's book? What did you think? What has helped you succeed in your career while also raising a family?