(This post originally appeared in ForbesWoman.com)

What if the frustrating pay gap between men and women was caused, in part, by our collective low expectation that women are supposed to be “good” providers?

This expectation is alive and well according to the recently released Pew Research Center report, The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families, even if it’s not grounded in reality.  Most women will work most of their lives outside of the home in some capacity.

Women are already providers but that’s not what we expect.

According to the Pew Research Center study, when asked “To be ready for marriage, how important is it that a man be a good provider?” 67% of all respondents said, “very important.”   But when posed the same question regarding women, only 33% said, “very important.”  (I’d bet if Pew asked the question, “how important is it that men/women be a good caregiver” the results would flip.)

Expectations matter.   They affect the choices we make.

If women aren’t expected to be good providers but men are, how does that affect the decisions each gender makes from a very young age that perpetuate the gap?

When I was growing up my family emphasized education and being able to support myself but I was never expected to be a “good provider.”  What if I had been?  Would I have been forced to learn how to negotiate my compensation more effectively at a younger age?     Would I have made different, perhaps more lucrative, choices throughout my career?

That’s exactly what my friend Karen has done since we started in the same bank management training program after college.   From the beginning, Karen had clear high expectations for her career and for her compensation.   I remember staring in awe as the 23 year old Karen responded, “No,” when asked by the bank’s President, “Is everyone happy with their placements?”   Sure enough, she was moved to the higher paying job that she wanted.

Over the next twenty years, Karen continued this pattern of asking for what she wanted and felt she deserved whether it was a title, a job or money.   It wasn’t always easy or fun, but she expected it for herself.  And guess what?  She got it along with a loving husband and three beautiful children.

I can’t help but wonder what would happen to the pay gap if more women were like Karen and set their earnings expectations as high as those of the men in their chosen fields doing the same amount and type of work?

Expectations also influence the way others perceive and respond to us. (Click here for more)

Two realizations prompted me to start blogging more than four years ago:

1. You can develop and implement a flexibility strategy in a company and help someone manage their work+life fit, but that change won’t “stick” unless it is reinforced by the work+life mindset and language the broader culture.  Currently, it is not; and
2. The extreme or outdated work+life fit stereotypes that the mainstream media consistently reinforced were keeping individuals, organizations and public policy stuck in the past.  Other voices outside of the advertiser/media market were going to have to make that change happen.

Dad as “bumbling, disinterested care giver” stereotype

A perfect example of an outdated stereotype reinforced in the culture by the media and advertisers is the “mom as the primary caregiver, and dad, if he is present at all, as a bumbling incompetent who mom needs to rescue.”  For years, this picture never matched the reality I’d seen in my work and in my personal life:

• At Work: Even though they’d be invited as an afterthought, men are often at least a third if not half of the participants in my presentations.  And often the organizers of the events are “surprised so many men turned up.”  I’m not.  Men, many of whom are fathers, have told me for years that they are just as interested in learning how to flexibly manage their work+life fit as women.
• In Life: My husband and most his peers who are fathers have always been incredibly involved and competent caregivers from day one.  In fact, when I go to the grocery store on Sunday many of my fellow shoppers are men who are clearly buying food for their families and often have their children with them while they are doing it.  Mom is nowhere around.

Why does it matter?  We may see men in real life participating as involved, capable fathers who need to flexibly manage their work and life as much as mothers, but then we turn on the television, go to a website, pick up a magazine.  The images presented sell us collectively a very different reality that ultimately hurts men and women.

Rebel Dad’s Pampers Boycott–One man’s mission to fight the “Dad as bumbling, disinterested care giver” stereotype

Unfortunately, the market is set up to reinforce this stereotype.  Media outlets want advertisers dollars.  And, advertisers have decided that playing up the mom as the primary, competent caregiver who makes all of the decisions is the best way to move merchandise.  So, it’s going to take individuals standing up and saying, “Enough” before the outdated stereotypes are replaced.  That’s exactly what one father, Brian Reid (aka RebelDad.com) is doing.

I first ran across Rebel Dad when he blogged for the Washingtonpost.com.  Through his writing, I’ve been introduced to a group of men online whose beliefs and actions reflect what I actually see everyday–smart, involved, caring, competent fathers.  So, I was thrilled when Brian and his community of dads decided to take on Pampers for its “mom-centric” advertising campaign.  It’s one shot fired in a campaign that will hopefully build even more momentum.  Here’s his story.  Go Rebel Dad!

CY: As a Dad, what made you so frustrated that you said “enough” and started the Pampers boycott?

RD: Every year, on Mother’s Day, Pampers sends me an e-mail telling me how important “moms like you” are. And every year, I post on how tragic it is that the world’s biggest maker of diapers instantly assumes that everyone on their e-mail coupon list is a woman. This year, with tongue firmly in cheek (I’m out of the diaper stage forever now), I decided I’d try to protest a little more officially.

CY: What do you hope this boycott achieves with regard to Pampers specifically, and more broadly with the media’s recognition that dads are caregivers?

RD:  I am realistic. I don’t expect or even want Pampers to institute some sort of marketing plan that calls for exactly half of all ads to be targeted at men. All I want is an acknowledgment, somehow, somewhere — in an ad, in an e-mail, in a campaign — that dads play a central role in raising kids, up to an including changing diapers. This isn’t rocket science: Huggies is doing it. But if you look across everything that Pampers does, it’s hard to find so much as an image of an engaged dad.

CY: Why is this important to Dads, moms, kids and the broader culture?

RD: There is no meaningful biologic reason why — with the exception of breastfeeding — dads can’t play an equal (or greater!) role in raising kids. The imbalance in gender roles, then, is largely a social phenomenon. And though a single mom-focused commercial doesn’t automatically make dads into indifferent fathers, the cumulative impact of the mom-as-caregiver image in medium after medium after medium has an impact after a while. There are a good percentage of working dads that have never even thought about a role reversal, in part, because they’ve assumed that the world don’t work that way. And — if all you did was watch TV — you’d be hard-pressed to argue.

CY: Although you are putting your own blogging about the boycott on hold for awhile, the boycott itself continues.  The response from other dads/parents has been positive.  What is the message you are getting from fathers responding to the boycott?

The feedback has been great. Everyone has been supportive. But what’s really heartening is the number of people, who — like me — pay attention to the companies that show dads as involved parents. I mentioned Huggies earlier, and they came on my radar screen in no small part because of a bunch of fathers who suggested that I look at their marketing, which is gender-neutral in its language and pretty dad-friendly in its approach.

CY: How long will the boycott continue, and do you plan to expand it beyond Pampers?

At this point, I have other issues on which to focus my attention, and I am under no illusion that I will bring Proctor and Gamble to its knees. I’ll keep posting — and keep mentioning the boycott — every time I see something mom-centric from Pampers, and I look forward to calling off the dogs as soon as I see some dads in their marketing materials.

CY: I look forward to that day too.  In the mean time, keep going.  The your voice and the voices of other fathers in your community are critical if we are to change the broader cultural misperceptions about care giving that keep us all stuck.  Thanks, Brian!

What do you think of Rebel Dad’s Pampers boycott?  What else can we do to make the we the broader culture talks about and thinks about work and life match the reality most of us live in?

I waited.  I knew it was coming.  As expected, shortly after the release of The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything the calls and emails began rolling in, “What do you think?”  Earlier this year, I’d dodged that question when Womenomics was released.  At the time, I thought I didn’t need to add my voice to the mix because of course by now most people understood that work+life flexibility was an issue for everyone.  Not just women.  Future efforts would certainly discuss the issue from an inclusive, gender neutral, business based perspective.  I was confident this would be the last high-profile, big media launch of a book or program that focused on work+life flexibility primarily in the context of women.

I was wrong.  The launch of A Woman’s Nation was even bigger and bolder.  So, for what it’s worth and because people keep asking me, it’s time to answer the question, “What do I think?”  First, let me say a couple of things.  Like Womenomics, The Shriver Report is well done and well intentioned.   In fact, two of my favorite thinkers, Brad Harrington of Boston College’s Center for Work and Family, and the writer/feminist, Courtney Martin, contributed excellent chapters.  Issues such as pay inequity, lack of representation in senior levels, and sharing of care responsibilities are all important issues to discuss specifically as they relate to women, but…

We really, seriously, once and for all, need to stop talking about the need for work+life flexibility solely in the context of women!

Why?  Four reasons:

It’s not true that women have the greatest need for flexibility in work and life

Both men and women do.  More flexibility for men means more flexibility for women.  And it doesn’t include the multiple ways businesses benefit from making flexibility in how, when and where work is done part of the day-to-day operating model including:

I fear it inadvertently reinforces the Motherhood Penalty

As Kanter award-winning researcher Shelley J. Correll of Stanford University found in two separate studies: Evaluators consistently rated mothers less competent and less committed to paid work than non-mothers, and childless women received 2.1 times as many callbacks as mothers with similar credentials.  There’s a deep, entrenched bias in the system that says if you hire a mother, it’s a problem.  So don’t hire her.  (Check out the work of Harvard’s Mahrazin Banaji for more on entrenched bias—hat tip: Maryella Gockel, of E&Y).

When a book, report or press conference is entitled Womenomics or A Woman’s Nation, no matter how much you say, “It’s not just about women,” it is about women.   By linking the need for greater work+life flexibility so directly and publicly to women and mothers, I’m afraid it perpetuates this inaccurate perception that mothers are the only ones who can’t make it work without extra accommodations.  It doesn’t challenge or change the prejudice.

It further isolates men, who want to be part of the conversation but won’t participate is something they perceive to be a “women’s thing.” (Really, you can’t blame them.)

Today, work+life strategies are ghettoized outside of the day-to-day operating model of business.  In many organizations work+life issues are discussed, if not solely, then primarily as part of the women’s initiative.  In the media, coverage of the topic is confined almost exclusively to women’s magazines or articles focused on women.  Even though research shows that men suffer from higher levels of work+life conflict than women, and are just as interested in work+life strategies.  But they are usually left out in the cold.

My experience is that if you make the discussion gender neutral, and get senior line leadership support, the men will flood in.  A couple of years ago, I conducted a series of work+life fit strategy seminars at an investment bank.   The first two sessions were sponsored by the company’s women’s leadership group.  Although men “are encouraged and welcome to attend,” not surprisingly, the majority of attendees were women.  A few brave men were scattered about the room.  Curious, I stopped one of the men at the end of the session and said, “If this wasn’t sponsored by the women’s group would more guys show up?”  Without hesitation, he responded with a smile, “Of course, most men don’t go to a chick event.”

I suggested to the HR leader in charge of the series, “Why don’t we get individual business unit leaders to sponsor the remaining three sessions, and ask the women’s leadership group if they would become a silent partner?  Maybe we’ll get more men to show up.”  The head of the women’s group thought it was a great idea, but the HR leader wasn’t so sure, “Well, okay, but don’t be surprised if only a few attend.”  P.S. the last three sessions were so popular that they added a fourth session.  And more than half of the attendees were men.  The HR leader and the male business leaders who sponsored the seminars now understood that work+life flexibility wasn’t just a woman’s issues, but an issue for everyone.

It allows us avoid the hard work we need to do to make flexibility part of the way business operates and individuals manage their lives.

Isolating work+life flexibility as a women’s issue is a feel-good, red herring.   What we really need to do is fundamentally rethink how we all work, manage our lives and run our businesses.   That’s going to require innovation and creativity which is not easy.  Today, rapid change and uncertainty are the norm, making flexibility and resilience imperative if we are to thrive.

Hopefully A Woman’s Nation is the last public, high-profile media event that so directly and publicly links work+life flexibility and women for all the reasons I listed above.  Going forward, let’s focus money, firepower, effort, and exposure on the truth that it’s about all of us, which, in turn, will help women more.  What do you think?

“The National Study of the Changing Workforce is here!  The National Study of the Changing Workforce is here!”  Yes, that’s how I responded when I received the 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW). Ever since I worked at Families and Work Institute, the NSCW has been one of my favorite pieces of research (yes, I have favorite pieces of research).  Not only does the NSCW offer a very accurate snapshot of the prevailing work+life reality in a given period of time.  But, more importantly, it gives us an opportunity to step back and see if the way we are collectively talking about and thinking about work and life matches reality.  In my opinion, it doesn’t.

My recent conversation with a female MBA student at one of the top business schools provides a perfect example.  She called to interview me for the student newspaper and wanted some tips for women MBAs about how to manage their work and life after they got out of school.  My first tip—“Realize that managing work and life isn’t just an issue for women.  In fact, men report higher levels of work-life conflict.”  Not surprisingly, she responded, “What? Really?” It wasn’t until I showed her the results of the NSCW, and she confirmed the findings with male MBA students that she began to understand how outdated her assumptions were.

Here are other highlights from the NSCW that together create a snapshot of today’s work-life reality.  As you read, ask yourself, does the picture below inform the way:
•    I think about and talk about work-life issues (even if different than my own circumstances)?
•    My manager/employer thinks about, talks about, and addresses work-life issues?
•    The media presents work-life issues?
•    The government addresses work-life issues?

Reality #1: Women and men under 29 years old are equally likely to want jobs with greater responsibility, which was not the case in the past when men were more likely to report wanting more responsibility.

Reality #2: Women under 29 years old with children are no less likely than women without children to want jobs with more responsibility, which was not the case in the past when women with children were less likely to want jobs with more responsibility.

Reality #3: Women’s labor force participation continues to increase, with 71% of mothers with children under the age of 18 working in 2007.  In 2005-2006, women earned a majority of all bachelor’s degrees (58%) and master’s degrees (60%).

Reality #4: 79% of married employees are part of a dual-earner couple (up from 66% in 1977).  In 2008, women contributed 44% of the annual dual-earner family income, up from 39% in 1997, which makes the loss of their jobs even more detrimental.

Reality #5: For the first time in 2008, the percentage of men and women who agree with the statement that “it’s better for all involved if the man earns the money and the woman takes care of the home and children” was inconsequential and not significantly different (42% of men and 39% of women in 2008, versus 74% of men and 52% of women in 1977).

Reality #6: In 2008, 73% of respondents either strongly or somewhat agreed that “a mother who works outside the home can have just as good a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work,” a big increase from 58% in 1977. Interestingly, even though a majority of men agreed with the statement in 2008 (67%), they do still lag behind the women (80%).

Reality #7: Employed fathers are spending significantly more time with their children under 13 than they did in 1977, with millennial fathers reporting the biggest increase.  Men are also:
•    Taking more responsibility for the care of the children (49% say they take more or equal share of care in 2008, versus 41% in 1992)
•    Doing more or an equal share of the cooking (56% of men in 2008, versus 34% in 1992)
•    Doing more or an equal share of the house cleaning (53% of men in 2008 versus 40% in 1992).

Reality #8: Not surprisingly, “Men’s reported level of work-life conflict has risen significantly from 34% in 1977 to 45% in 2008, while women’s work-life conflict has increased less dramatically and not significantly: from 34% in 1977 to 39% in 2008.” And the level of conflict is even higher for dual-earner fathers, with 59% experiencing some or a lot of conflict in 2008, versus 45% of dual-earner mothers.

What did you think?  Does the reality outlined above inform the way:
•    You think about and talk about work-life issues?
•    Your manager/employer thinks about, talks about, and addresses work-life issues?
•    The media presents work-life issues?
•    The government addresses work-life issues?

I think we have a long way to go before the perceptions and the debate related to work-life issues on all of these levels matches reality.  Hopefully, the NSCW will help close the gap. What do you think?

A couple of interesting work-life resources/opportunities:

1. Work & Family Life is a monthly, cost-effective magazine that companies and organizations can distribute to their employees.  Work & Family Life is full of great work-life related information (click here to view a recent issue).  For more information contact the publisher, Dr. Susan Ginsburg at workfam@aol.com or 1-800-278-2579
2. Are you a mom interested in sharing what it was like to transition from working woman to working mom?  FWO Consulting is conducting a national online survey of moms to learn more about this often challenging change.  To learn more about FWO and the survey, go to http://www.fwoconsulting.com/.   Another resource for women transitioning to motherhood is provided by Rachel Egan at Maternity Transitions www.rachelegan.com.

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 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)

(Check out my latest Fast Company blog post, “Launching the “Attention” Movement, Distracted by Maggie Jackson)

One of the most entrenched mindset shifts we need to make about work and life in the 21st century is that it’s no longer a dichotomous choice between working or not working. The truth is that there are countless work+life fit possibilities from which to choose, and there’s no right answer.

You would think this realization would be a source of celebration and liberation, but I often find confusion. “What do you mean? What do these possibilities look like? How do I do it?” People want examples. They need new models of the work+life fit possibilities that they can adapt to their own lives. This is why I love “Shared Care” the model of shared parenting developed by Jessica DeGroot and the ThirdPath Institute. It is work+life fit in action.

The “Shared Care” model and the work of ThirdPath got a big boost last weekend when it was showcased in Lisa Belkin’s cover story, “When Mom and Dad Share it All,” in The New York Times magazine section. In the article, you get to see how a number of couples worked together to creatively manage their work+life fit to share the care of their children.

A couple of important takeaways from the article that will hopefully help parents make the mindset shift and allow shared care to work for them and their children:
Continue Reading…

Please excuse my absence last week, but sadly we just found out that my mother’s Stage 4 lung cancer has returned. While we aren’t sure exactly what this means, I will share in my Success Magazine blog posting later this week how I’ve begun to rethink my work+life fit and revisit my definition of success in order to support her.

Work+Life “Fit” Blog: Breaking Down Stereotypes #6 – Even though my company supports it, it really isn’t “okay” to use flexibility

Drum roll, please…the final work+life stereotype we will break down is: “Even though my company supports it, it really isn’t okay to use flexibility.” This is the reason 32% of the Work+Life Fit Reality Check survey respondents gave for not improving their work-life “balance.”

Over the past decade, I have heard this excuse countless times and it continues to fascinate me, because there are usually no facts to back it up. Notice the survey question begins, “Even though my company supports it.” In other words, this belief prevails even when a company has offered flexibility and other programs or policies to help its employees achieve work-life “balance.” Furthermore, I often hear experts commenting on the subject of work-life “balance,” say the answer is that, “Companies have to do more,” but what if they are and employees aren’t using it? Continue Reading…

Cali Becomes Monthly Guest Blogger, Success Magazine’s “Work/Life Balance” Blog

The Work+Life Fit Blog is one-year old! And, oh, what a year it’s been! What better way to celebrate than by announcing that I’ve been asked to contribute a monthly posting to the newly launched work/life balance blog for Success Magazine. While my own Work+Life Fit blog will continue to follow work+life issues from a wide variety of perspectives, my postings for Success Magazine will focus specifically on how our personal definitions of success related to money, prestige, advancement, and caregiving impact our ability to effectively manage our work and life. Click here for my first posting and join me around the 15th of every month for an update.

Work+Life Stereotype #5—I will make less money

Our fears and misperceptions related to money and flexibility have a direct impact on our ability, or more accurately, inability to manage our work and life. According to the Work+Life Fit Reality Check, the survey conducted for us by the Opinion Research Corporation, when asked why they hadn’t improved their work-life “balance,” 45% of respondents said it was because they’d make less money. Continue Reading…

What are the top two reasons people give for not pursuing work+life flexibility? Number one is, “They will say no.” And, coming in a close second is, “It will hurt my career.” These fears are so pervasive that they’ve actually kept people from seeking creative solutions to their work+life challenges. And the worst part is they aren’t true.

Here’s the Proof

When respondents to the 2006 Work+Life Fit Reality Check were asked why they didn’t improve their work-life balance, 32% said it was because they thought their boss would say no. 29% said, “Others will think I don’t work as hard,” which is another way of saying, “It will hurt my career.”

But over a decade of research and work with both individuals and organizations to develop innovative flexibility strategies has convinced me otherwise. Continue Reading…