Today is Martin Luther King’s birthday, and tomorrow Barack Obama will be sworn in as President of the United States of America.   Amazing.

This momentous occasion offers hope for change in so many different areas; however, for me, I’m optimistic that finally the realities of work and life will be addressed in 21st Century terms.

My hope is not blind.  My faith is reaffirmed by a consistent approach to work+life issues within the campaign and now in the administration’s policy agenda.   Here are highlights from blog posts I wrote starting in August, 2008.  Do you see a pattern?  Know hope:

August 27, 2008: Obama/McCain—First Time Work Life Flex in Econ Platforms of Both Candidates!

“They both have recognized that flexibility in where, when and how work is done is a business issue, not just a “nice thing you do.”  This is important because it positions work life flexibility where it should be, which is within the debate about economic competitiveness and effectiveness.”  (more)

 September 24, 2008:  Sarah, Michelle and the Post-Balance Era

 “…ultimately, the most important aspect of both Sarah Palin’s and Michelle Obama’s impact will be a subtle yet powerful shift away from the “balance” mindset and the “all or nothing” work life dichotomy that drew the battle lines of the unwinnable mommy wars.  They have the power to usher in the post-balance era of countless work life fit choices based upon our unique work and personal realities, and finally begin a productive discussion about the way work is done, life is managed, and business operates.” (more)

October 22, 2008: Next President and Your Work+Life Fit—Highlights…and Concerns  “Obama Work+Life Strategy—What I like:

• Sees work+life as mainstream economic and social policy issue
• Flexibility is a partnership between government and business through a combination of incentives and education to support the benefits.  The government would be a model employer and Obama endorses the Kennedy legislation allowing employees to present a plan for flexibility, but still give the employer the right to determine whether or not to approve. 
• Power of the “bully pulpit:” Leveraging the power of the President to move the conversation and change understanding and perception about work life issues.
• Expanding FMLA coverage to more people, and more issues including eldercare, parental participation in academic activities, and situations of domestic violence.
• Making FMLA a paid leave.
• Employers would have to provide seven paid sick days. 
• Comprehensive approach to care for children: Taking a comprehensive approach to children ages 0-5, as well as after-school care for school age children.
  • Increase minimum wage.
• Seeing role of government as supporter and facilitator of solutions for business: “We are in a tough time economically so we don’t want to do anything that is ineffective or inefficient or that would actually hurt employers.  Government bureaucracy needs to be changed, but in some cases it will be a conversation (about) cultural norms. People don’t want a hand out, but do want a government that is on their side. 

Obama Work+Life Strategy—Concerns:

In a nutshell, my concern is cost, especially given the recent economic downturn.  And from a pure cost perspective, yes, these proposals will be expensive.  But in the context of the work+life reality outlined earlier, the benefits from the overall investment will offset a sizeable portion of the costs through increased productivity, goodwill, workforce preparedness, and enhanced global competitiveness in terms of a flexible workplace and workforce.  In other words, from a pure “cost” perspective I am concerned.  From a cost/benefit perspective, I am less concerned given the positive results I’ve observed over the past 13 years in the work+life field.” (more)
 

December 4, 2008: Michelle Obama as Post-Balance Rorschach Test

 “Like all of us, she is a complex individual whose choices aren’t going to “fit” neatly into any simple category.   I believe she’s going to be a ground-breaking pioneer, who will help us all envision unique possibilities of working and having a life…Whether she realizes it or not, Michelle Obama through her words and actions is busting a number of our longest-held biases about the way we manage work and life.  She is showing us that there are no right answers, that change is an opportunity, that just because one partner “wins” doesn’t mean the other has to lose, and that shifting focus onto the personal areas of your life doesn’t mean completely eliminating your professional identity.  It’s not “all or nothing,” it’s work+life fit.  And it’s going to look different for all of us.” (more)

January 8, 2009:  “Work and Family Balance,” Second Bullet in the White House VP Task Force Agenda

“The prominent placement of “work and family” within the economic goals of the White House Task Force on Working Families is important and noteworthy.   It may finally move us beyond the outdated “all or nothing” mindset and inflexible approaches to work and life that keep individuals overwhelmed and organizations underperforming.  It’s a change that’s long overdue.” (more)

In January, 2010, I will check back to see if the progress continued, but in the meantime what do you think?  Do you see a consistency in an approach and commitment that gives you hope that real work+life change is finally coming?

This fall, I noted how remarkable it was that work life “balance” and flexibility were part of both candidates’ economic platforms.  Families and Work Institute, the prestigious work-life think tank, then hosted unprecedented conference calls with both campaigns to discuss their positions on work+life issues.   And with the recently-announced White House Task Force on Working Families, to be chaired by Vice President-elect Joe Biden, the historic progress of the work+life agenda as a core economic issue continues.  This could be big. 

The goals of the task force are to “work towards raising the living standards of middle class families” by (presented in the order outlined in the official Obama administration press release):

1. Expanding education and lifelong training opportunities
2. Improving work and family balance
3. Restoring labor standards, including workplace safety
4. Helping to protect middle-class and working-family incomes
5. Protecting retirement security

“Improving work and family balance” is second bullet point (emphasis mine), after expanding education and training.  Second.  That’s not to say it’s more important than labor standards, income protection, and retirement security.  But placing “work and family balance” so near the top of the list is a noteworthy statement about the importance of managing work and life to the future economic success of the country. 

This placement acknowledges what we found in the 2007 Work+Life Fit Reality Check survey which was the 60 % of respondents believe the next President should introduce legislation that would make it easier for organizations to offer and individuals to have work life flexibility. 

Second, it recognizes the fact that work and life are no longer two separate spheres, with neat, commonly understood rules and boundaries. To use the term coined by Families and Work Institute, there is “spillover.”  Today there are no boundaries, and the old rules governing how we manage our work and our personal responsibilities no longer apply. 

There is no universal 9-to-5, in-the-office, Monday through Friday.  In all economic categories, most moms don’t stay home full-time, and dads are taking on more child care responsibilities.  (For new insights into the employment realities of rural women, check out the recent research from the Carsey Institute at University of New Hampshire.)  More and more people have aging parents.  No one has guaranteed lifetime employment with one company until retirement.  And increasingly, retirement includes some kind of paid work, either out of necessity or desire.  The personal, organizational, governmental, political and cultural ramifications of this spillover are formidable, and they need to be recognized and addressed. 

By facing this new work+life reality head on, the Task Force has an opportunity.  It can advocate updated strategies that will help individuals and organizations take advantage of the benefits that lie within these changes.  Important advantages do exist, if managed correctly:

1. Individuals will have more choices about how to flexibly manage their unique work+life fit realities as they change day-to-day and throughout their careers.
2. Organizations can be more adaptable and flexible in a global economy in which rapid change will continue to be the only constant. 

While there are great opportunities, success will require a partnership between government, business, and individuals.  The government alone can not provide the answers, but it can create a sense of urgency and reward innovation.  Making “work life” one of the top economic priorities of the Task Force is a great start. 

If I could make an initial recommendation to the Task Force, it would be to change the goal from “improving work and family balance” to “improving work+life fit and flexibility.”  

We all need to actively and strategically manage our work and life, not just those with family responsibilities.  There is no such thing as achieving balance, only helping individuals flexibly manage their unique work+life fit.  And, organizations can use the same flexibility individuals need to manage their work and life–flextime, telecommuting, reduced schedules, compressed workweeks, and project-based work—as business strategies to help them compete and thrive.

Simply changing the language of the goal would open up many possibilities:

For individuals, it could mean providing new guidelines and an updated skill set for managing work and life.  This would include an understanding of how propose a flex plan to telecommute, flex your hours, reduce your schedule, work fewer longer days, share your job, or become a project-based consultant.  And do it in a way that considers your needs as well as the needs of the business. These skills could be incorporated into the new education and lifelong learning effort.

From a public policy perspective, it could involve updating laws, programs and policies related to all aspects of work and life—continuing education, child care, eldercare, retirement, volunteerism, health and wellness—to reflect this new flexible work+life reality where one-size-does-not-fit all.

For organizations and business leaders, it could move business strategies—client service, resource management, talent management, work design and planning–once and for all out of the 1950’s.  Adapting workplace practices to a reality where work and life are no longer separate entities. 

The progress within organizations toward a more flexible work environment has been steady but too slow, as only 25% of respondents to the 2007 Work+Life Fit Reality Check said they had the work life flexibility they needed. Greater flexibility in where, when and how work is done allows individuals to more effectively manage their work+life fit, but also helps businesses better service clients, manage resources, prepare for disasters, support environmental sustainability, and reduce costs, just to name a few of the broad bottom line impacts. 

The Task Force could start by supporting the Working Families Flexibility Act whereby employees can request flexibility but must prove that it works for them personally and the business.  And the government could provide organizations with resources, tax incentives and best practices to encourage the implementation of strategic flexibility in a way that works for their business and employees.  As with individual work+life fit, one type of strategic flexibility does not fit every business or industry.

The prominent placement of “work and family” within the economic goals of the White House Task Force on Working Families is important and noteworthy.   It may finally move us beyond the outdated “all or nothing” mindset and inflexible approaches to work and life that keep individuals overwhelmed and organizations underperforming.  It’s a change that’s long overdue.

What do you think?  Will making “work life” a prominent objective of the White House Task Force have an impact?  How?

Last week, sexism, singleism, and workaholism came together to create a big post-balance era faux pas that reinforced why we must remove the often inaccurate judgments about a person’s personal life and responsibilities from the hiring process.  It started when Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell commented that his fellow governor, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, would be perfect in the role of Secretary of Homeland Security, “Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it.”  Uh oh.

First, let’s look at how others interpreted Governor Rendell’s remarks.  What did they hear?  Not surprisingly, the same words were interpreted differently depending upon the work+life fit lens people were looking through.
 
For moms, like CNN’s Campbell Brown, Rendell’s words were sexist (or “mom”ist).  They meant that if Napolitano did have a family she couldn’t do the job, which is not only unfair but wrong.  The nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President sparked a similar debate.

“Workplace discrimination against mothers and others based on family caregiving responsibilities is a rapidly growing problem,” notes the introduction from a new policy briefing released by the Sloan Work and Family Research Network and the Center for Work Life Law.  It is such a problem that there are new enforcement guidelines from the EEOC on caregiver discrimination and many states are considering legislation.  But, comments like Governor Rendell’s, however innocent, further reinforce the bias.
 
Another group, represented in a New York Times OpEd piece by Gail Collins, felt Rendell’s comments promoted “single”ism, or the assumption that because Janet Napolitano is single, she has no family and no life and therefore, can and wants to, work all of the time.
 
This is the other side of the sexism coin but is equally inaccurate.  In my work, I have found that single people have unique challenges that add an extra layer to their personal responsibilities.  They have to do all of their own errands, home maintenance, financial planning, shopping, etc, as well as care for parents, pets, and friends.  The belief that if you are single, you are all about work is completely untrue.
 
Now, let’s consider what Governor Rendell says he was trying to say.  In a nutshell, he was trying to say, “She’s a workaholic like me.”  According to Governor Rendell, he has no life.  And as far as he knows, Napolitano has no life because she has no family.  He believes that’s what’s required to be the Governor of Pennsylvania, or a Secretary of Homeland Security.
 
Now, I’ve been doing my job long enough to know that you can waste a lot of time trying to change someone who thinks that to do a good job you need to work all the time.  Some people work constantly out of a compulsion or the desire to work.  And most of them, like Ed Rendell, do believe it’s what’s required to do their job.  That’s fine, but it can’t be the bar against which we measure everyone else’s ability and effectiveness.  (See a recent article on Forbes.com “Surviving a Workaholic Spouse” in which I’m quoted)

Most jobs don’t require working all of the time to complete well.  I’ve met plenty of competent people with very demanding, highly-responsible jobs who work long hours but also feel it’s important to have relationships and interests outside of work.  In fact, most would argue it makes them better at their jobs.  (For more, see Stewart Friedman’s book, Total Leadership)
 
Maybe Governor Rendell’s definition of success is all work, all the time.  But it doesn’t have to be Janet Napolitano’s in order for her to be a Secretary of Homeland Security.
     
What lessons can we all learn from this seemingly accidental work+life fit faux pas? We need to update the way in which we interpret our own work+life fit choices and those of others.  We also need to take “life” out of the hiring equation.  When someone is being considered for a job the primary question for that person must be “can you perform the tasks and responsibilities required?” and not “How will he or she do the job given what I perceive to be his or her personal responsibilities?”   
 
Like Governor Rendell, we get into trouble applying simplistic, outdated paradigms to judge someone’s personal realities.  The truth is that few of us have work+life fit realities that fit neatly into any category.  My experience is that when we do try to guess or judge, we are usually wrong.  Keep it about the job.  Leave life out of it.

In August, my husband and I attended a speech given by Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of the new book, “Hot, Flat and Crowded.”   While we have always been aware of the need to go green, we left his speech convinced of the dire consequences if individuals, businesses and governments don’t radically change the way we use our resources. 

One of the points Friedman emphasized was that for innovation in alternative energy sources to continue, the price of gas and other fuels needed to rise.  Otherwise, the economic return would not be enough to justify the increased costs for companies to invest in development.   At that time, gas was inching toward $4 a gallon, and the economic collapse seemed to be isolated and contained. 

Oh what a difference four months makes.  A recent article by Elizabeth Rosenthal in the New York Times confirmed my fears:  Economic Slump May Limit Moves on Clean Energy.  Because of the global economic downturn, doubts are growing about commitments to cap emissions or phase out polluting factories.   With gas at $2 a gallon, Americans will be less likely to stop driving their SUVs, and Europeans argue they can’t afford to address the financial crisis and reduce emissions. 

Let’s assume that 50% of the hot, flat and crowded future scenarios that Friedman presented in his lecture are valid.  We don’t have the luxury of putting our efforts to improve environmental sustainability on hold while we sort out our finances.  And the good news is that we don’t have to.  Unfortunately, none of the proposals related to reducing emissions that Rosenthal cited in the New York Times included the one strategy that will cost the least amount of money: increasing flexibility in where, when, and how work is done.  

Rosenthal wrote about the environmental proposal presented by President-elect Obama.  It called for “the country to build wind farms, and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and alternative energy technologies.”  Nowhere did it mention reducing emissions and consumption of fossil fuels by implementing a broad-reaching work+life flexibility strategy.  So what would that look like?

I originally wrote about a national work+life flexibility strategy back in May 2008 in response to predictions that gas could reach $10 a gallon.  It’s an approach that would allow us to make progress on environmental sustainability without incurring the costs related to expensive carbon caps or factory conversions and closures:

There is one powerful solution that leaders could implement today.  It would have a guaranteed positive impact, not only on the environment but also on the people and organizations using it—work+life flexibility.  Isolated efforts have started such as the UK’s Work from Home Day on May 15th, Houston’s Flex in the City, and the state of Georgia letting employees work from home one day a week.  But to have a meaningful impact, it needs to be broader.  It needs to be national. Therefore, if I were the President of the United States, I would propose that starting June 1, 2008: 

1)  Everyone with a job that could be done from home would coordinate with their leader and team to determine one day of the week to telecommute.
 
Impact: Because people are still working full-time there would be no decrease in productivity, and fewer people commuting.   The group undress4success just released an interesting review of research on the estimated energy savings from telecommuting and it is truly astounding. 

2) Everyone who sets up a home office would be able to write off the cost on their taxes. 
Impact:  Shifting costs from the individual and employer to the government would provide a strong incentive to get the proper equipment for telecommuting.

3) For those who don’t have jobs that can be done remotely or who would prefer not to work from home (believe it or not there are many people for whom this is the case), set up three staggered shifts. This would reduce the number of people commuting at the same time.  These shifts could run from 5:00 am to 1:00 pm, 10:00 am to 6:00 pm; and then 2:00 pm to 10:00 pm.  As I have written before, there is no longer any reason we all need to commute at the same time (here).
 
Impact: Reduces energy consumed sitting in traffic; increases the efficient use of roads and public transportation by spreading it more evenly throughout the day; provides more global coverage across time zones for businesses, and allows people to work when they are at their best, e.g. morning people in the earliest shift, and night owls in the later shift.

Implementing strategic work+life flexibility will require organizations, leaders and individuals to fundamentally rethink the way they work, live, and manage their businesses.  As I have often written (here, here and here), the bottom-line payoffs go far beyond environmental sustainability, and are critical for not just surviving, but thriving during this economic downturn. 

As Thomas Friedman so clearly and eloquently points out, we can not let the challenges of this recession keep us from making headway with the environment.  If we do, the future will make what we are going through right now look like a vacation.  So, spread the word about work+life flexibility as a low-cost way to keep the environmental momentum going.

What do you think?  Do you hear people talking about work+life flexibility, or flexibility in where, when and how work is done, as part of a comprehensive approach to environmental sustainability?

In September, I predicted, “Sarah Palin’s and Michelle Obama’s impact will be a subtle yet powerful shift away from the “balance” mindset and the “all or nothing” work life dichotomy that drew the battle lines of the unwinnable mommy wars.  They have the power to usher in the post-balance era of countless work life fit choices based upon our unique work and personal realities, and finally begin a productive discussion about the way work is done, life is managed, and business operates.” 

Now Barack Obama is the President-elect, and my prediction is coming true.  How we perceive Michelle Obama’s choices as she moves her family to Washington, and begins her new job as first lady is a rorschach test for our post-balance approach to managing work and life.  Most of us still think in outdated “all or nothing” terms, judging Michelle Obama’s choices from a simplistic viewpoint.  Consider the following myth-based responses: 

Myth #1: She’s being forced into a more “traditional” role

According to a recent article in the International Herald Tribune, “While Obama has publicly embraced her soon-to-be-assumed role as first lady many women remain deeply divided over whether she will become a groundbreaking pioneer, or a dispiriting symbol of the limitations of modern-day, working motherhood.”  Why does it have to be all or nothing, ground-breaking pioneer or dispirited symbol?  Because this is how we think, and in doing so, we label ourselves and others in ways that are often inaccurate.  Michelle Obama seems to understand.  She told the Washington Post, “My view on this stuff is I’m just trying to be myself, trying to be as authentic as I can be.  I can’t pretend to be someone else.” 

Like all of us, she is a complex individual whose choices aren’t going to “fit” neatly into any simple category.   I believe she’s going to be a ground-breaking pioneer, who will help us all envision unique possibilities of working and having a life. 

Myth #2: She has “sacrificed” her career, which women are expected to do (Click here to read more)

Listen to Cali on Wed 11/19 at 4:00 pm ET talk with Maggie Mistal about Work+Life Fit in a Recession on Sirius Radio’s Martha Stewart Network!  “Making a Living with Maggie” inspires, educates and entertains listeners so that they feel empowered to make a great living doing work they are passionate about that fits into the lifestyle they desire.  Join Maggie every Wednesday at 4pm eastern/1pm pacific on SIRIUS 112 and XM 103.  For a free trial of SIRIUS visit http://www.maggiemistal.com/radio.htm

Now back to the blog…

“I thought it was amazing that after being elected President, we saw images of Barack Obama holding his first press conference and dropping his daughters off at school.  He didn’t open the car door and let them run out.  He got out of the car, and publicly kissed them good-bye.  The message was clear—I may be the President-elect but I am very much a dad.  

Both our President and Vice President-elect are very involved in their children’s lives.  What makes Obama and Biden different from previous administrations is that they are vocal and public about their parenting commitments.  And they talk openly about how they make choices to “fit” those responsibilities into their busy, high-profile lives. 

Will their example finally make it cool for men to feel comfortable stepping forward and engaging as equal partners with mothers not only in the broader work+life fit conversation but in developing new strategies for managing work and life that are relevant in today’s world?   Let’s hope the time has come.  Here are some ideas about how organizations, men/fathers, and women/mothers can leverage this historic moment and get the ball rolling: 

Organizations need to expand and rebrand internal work+life strategies beyond their women’s groups:  Nine times out of time, in most organizations, when work+life is discussed it’s within the context of women. But as one of my clients discovered three years ago, helping employees strategically manage their work+life fit goes way beyond women.  When we started discussing the development of their work+life flexibility strategy, this firm’s senior management team did view flexibility primarily as a strategy to retain their female talent.  However, when they conducted a firm-wide survey, they discovered that the men and the single employees were having more trouble managing their work and life than the women and married employees!  Immediately the focus of their approach to work+life flexibility shifted to helping all employees manage their work+life fit. 

This isn’t to say that work+life fit isn’t a women’s issue.  It is.  But limiting it to women and moms, let’s an organization feel good that they are “doing something,” while avoiding the tougher conversation and harder work related to fundamentally rethinking the way all of us work and manage our lives in an always on, do more with less reality.  

Dads need to support and encourage each other:  Feeling comfortable publicly acknowledging their parental role without fear of being seen as “less serious” is new territory for this generation of fathers.  They’ve had few visible role models.  But if Barack Obama and Joe Biden can publicly talk about their roles as fathers while holding two of the most powerful positions in the country, hopefully more men will see that it isn’t a sign of weakness but strength.  

Fathers are beginning to step forward to share information and ask to be included as part of the work+life dialogue.  For example, a couple of years ago, a male partner at one of the Big Four accounting firms asked that his region’s Mothers Network change its name to the Parents Network, so that fathers in the firm could participate.   

Here’s another opportunity for fathers to share information and support each other:  I’ve written before about ThirdPath Institute and their concept of Shared Care between moms and dads.  For over a decade, ThirdPath and its founder Jessica DeGroot has studied how men and women can work together to create innovative ways to “share” the care of their children.  On November 21st from 1 to 2 pm ET, ThirdPath will hold its first ThirdPath Community call focused on Shared Care dads—dads who have redesigned their work so they can play an active role in the everyday care of their children.  Five Shared Care dads will talk about their experiences and ThirdPath will end the call with a chance to answer questions from call participants.  Attendance is limited, so please email Jessica DeGroot at jdegroot@thirdpath.org and put Shared Care Dads in the subject line. 

Women need to create venues that encourage dads to participate:  Maybe we are so used to leading the fight related to these issues for so long that we don’t know how to bring men into a partnership, but my experience is that many men are just waiting to be invited.  Moms and women need to look at our groups and activities related to managing work and life and see where we might be able to engage men and fathers in our efforts.  

Here’s a successful approach I’ve taken for the past couple of years.  Every time I am asked to speak to a corporate women’s group, I ask if the work+life subject is being discussed in other venues in the organization so men can get the information if they are interested.  Often, the answer is no.  In those cases, I accept the opportunity only if the women’s group can find another line-related group to co-sponsor the event, and if they publicly open the event up to men.  One recent group got their internal Innovation Team to co-sponsor the talk.  And another got the senior line leadership of their division to be the co-sponsors.  In both cases, men composed at least 50% of the attendees much to the surprise of some of the female organizers and HR.  Interestingly, the men were the least surprised by their turnout.  They were invited.  It wasn’t just a “women’s” event, so they came.  And in my opinion, the women were helped more by positioning work+life in their organization as an “everyone” issue. 

We all win by encouraging fathers to work with women and mothers to develop new, joint strategies for managing work and the care of children.  Men have better relationships with their children, children really know their fathers, and more opportunities open up for women.  Maybe seeing President-elect Obama happily dropping his kids off at school, or Vice President-elect Biden talk candidly about his years as a single father, will make men more comfortable taking their place at the work+life table.  And women will see that we need to create the space for them at the table that we have historically had occupy alone. 

What do you think?  Is working and managing the care of children a “women’s’ issue or can we do more to bring dads into the process?

Symbolism is important for driving cultural change.  Within this presidential campaign, there have been many powerful symbolic conversations and actions related to work+life fit.  For the first time:

• The male and female candidates on both Obama and McCain tickets and their spouses talk about how they manage their unique work+life fit choices and challenges; and
• Both campaigns list work+life front and center as part of their economic agendas. 

The question then becomes how do the McCain and Obama administrations plan to translate that shift in awareness into action that impacts the reality of individuals? 

Ellen Galinsky of Families and Work Institute recently hosted two unprecedented conference calls in which representatives from both campaigns outlined the specifics of their philosophy, policies and programs related to a broad range of work+life issues.  Detailed transcripts and commentary on these calls is available at www.familiesandwork.org.

Having listened to both calls and read the transcripts (which I urge you to do), two very different approaches emerge in a number of areas.  To provide a context in which to compare the two strategies, here is an overview of the trends in work and life presented by Brad Harrington, the Executive Director of the Center for Work and Family at Boston College in a recent presentation at Cornell University:

• Aging workforce and generational diversity
• Challenges of working in a more diverse workplace (e.g gender, race, ethnicity, religion)
• Increasing workload, stress and dramatic increase in health care costs
• Globalization, working across cultures, and the 24×7 workplace
• Pervasive use of technology and working virtually
• Growing importance of work-life. 

I would add: 

• Increasing pressure on businesses to cut costs and work smarter/better, and additional financial uncertainty and work-related pressures for individuals. 
• Ever-increasing pace of change that requires organizations and individuals to adapt and respond by being even more flexible in the way work is done, life outside of work is managed, and business is run in order to thrive. 

In the context of this work+life reality, my thoughts on the Obama and McCain work+life strategies are as follows: (click here to read more at Fast Company)

“What do you think Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama mean for working moms?”  I’ve been asked that question more times than I can count over the past few weeks.  Reading Anne Applebaum’s OpEd in The Washington Post entitled “The Class of ’64,” confirmed my hunch that, ultimately, the most important aspect of both Sarah Palin’s and Michelle Obama’s impact will be a subtle yet powerful shift away from the “balance” mindset and the “all or nothing” work life dichotomy that drew the battle lines of the unwinnable mommy wars.  They have the power to usher in the post-balance era of countless work life fit choices based upon our unique work and personal realities, and finally begin a productive discussion about the way work is done, life is managed, and business operates.
 
In her OpEd, Applebaum writes, “Here is a woman (Michelle Obama) who actually chose to present herself as simultaneously intelligent, ambitious and maternal…No less intelligent, ambitious and maternal than Michelle Obama, equally civic-minded and physically fit, (Palin) is the perfect illustration, in the words of Slate blogger Meghan O’Rourke, of the fact that the notion of a clearly defined, right-left/red-blue cultural war has become deeply misleading, since “the categories aren’t as tidy as they’re made out to be,”especially for women. Is it “right wing” or “left wing” that Palin went back to work the day after having a baby?  Is it “feminist” or “conservative” to defend one’s daughter’s right to get pregnant before being married? There aren’t good answers — just as it isn’t easy to say whether Obama’s presentation of herself as both happily married and professionally successful was a “red” or “blue” piece of political theater.”

It turns out that Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, Anne Applebaum and I have something in common—we were all born in 1964.  As Applebaum so eloquently points out, our experiences make it difficult to put our individual work+life choices neatly into any particular category.  And it’s been interesting to watch our culture uncomfortably struggle with how to explain and judge that work+life ambiguity over the past few weeks.      

In this election, our generation of moms is front and center for the first time.  And we are showing the world that there isn’t a “right,” or “all or nothing” solution to the question of how you combine your work with the other parts of your life.  It’s about what works for each of us, our families, and our jobs.  I believe this post-balance mindset shift will help everyone, not just moms, because it reflects reality. 

As Michelle and Sarah prove, every woman (and man) must create a work+life fit that works for them personally and for their jobs.  The primary question becomes “How is he or she performing on the job?” instead of “How does she do it?”  While it can be helpful to get tips and insights from someone else’s work+life fit, it is impossible to judge their choices.  For example, how would you define my work+life fit?  I am a mom who works full-time as the CEO of a company that I operate out of an office in my home.  This means when I am not traveling or at a client’s, I am in my house.  Am I a stay-at-home mom, or a working mom?  In fact, it doesn’t matter. 

As we move past the “all or nothing,” “right or wrong” work life balance debate of the past decade, now we can hopefully focus on increasing the amount of  work life flexibility on the job, and take action on the issues of portable health care and pensions, paid sick and dependent care leave, and child care and eldercare.  Because in a post-balance era these are strategies and supports we all need to manage our ever-changing, unique work+life fit throughout our lives and careers.   

Do you think the work life fit choices of Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama have moved us into the post-balance era?

EMPLOYEES WANT THE NEXT PRESIDENT’S AGENDA TO MAKE
WORK LIFE FLEXIBILITY EASIER FOR COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS

OTHER HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE 2007 WORK+LIFE FIT REALITY CHECK INCLUDE:

• More want to work differently than work less; only 5 percent favor reducing work schedule by more than 10 hours
• Almost 9 out of 10 believe work life flexibility would have either a positive or neutral effect on customer service
• Nearly 40 percent view work life flexibility as a growth strategy for their company, not just an employee perk
• More than half have more work life flexibility this year compared to last

December 6, 2007 – Nearly 60 percent of those surveyed in the 2007 Annual Work+Life Fit Reality Check believe the next president should introduce legislation that would make it easier for organizations to offer and individuals to have more work life flexibility. The telephone survey of a national probability sample of 900 full-time employed adults was sponsored by Work+Life Fit, Inc., conducted by Opinion Research Corporation November 1 – 5 and has a margin of error of +- 3 percent. Continue Reading…