What Do Jack Welch and Sonia Sotomayor Have in Common? Work-Life Balance at the Top

Work Wednesday

Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch  - the "manager of the century" to some and a ruthless dinosaur to others - stirred up a bunch of HR types and a lot of publicity by declaring recently that there is no such thing as work-life balance. According to a Wall Street Journal report on Monday,
Welch told attendees at a recent gathering of human resources professionals, "There's no such thing as work-life balance. There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences."

Aiming his remarks directly at women - not men - Welch pointed to examples of highly successful corporate women and continued: 

  "We'd love to have more women moving up faster," Mr. Welch said.

 "But they've got to make the tough choices and know the consequences of each one."

 Taking time off for family "can offer a nice life," Mr. Welch said, "but the chances of going to the top on that path" are smaller. "That doesn't mean you can't have a nice career," he added.

(As an aside, I wonder what ABC journalist and Womenomics author Claire Shipman said - or thought - about this as she interviewed Welch at the Society for Human  Resources conference where Welch delivered this creed. The WSJ didn't cover this angle even though Shipman's book, written with
BBC correspondent Katty Kay, is all about how women can use their power in the business world to redefine their work lives.  At least that's the buzz. It's on my summer reading list.)

Now, there's nothing Welch said that he hasn't said before about work-life balance in his books and speeches. In fact, in his best-seller Winning, he describes even the concept of balance as a "luxury."  But Welch's remarks, focused as they were on women, drew lots of comments from journalists, bloggers, and their readers. See, for example, these posts in the Conglomerate,  Salon.com, and the WSJ's own Juggle blog - and the hundreds of accompanying reader comments. 

Most of the bloggers and chatterers - even those that argued that Welch is hopelessly out of date with modern work trends - acknowledged that Welch, to some degree, is right. After all, rising to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company - or to the top of any profession -  usually is incompatible with having a meaningful family life (or any life at all) outside the office. (Jack himself  - with a few wives in the deck and some children that he admittedly didn't really parent  - is a prime example.)  But what was interesting about the comments, is that a lot of people - moms, dads, and non-parents too – were sharply critical of Welch's one-dimensional view of success.  Most of the entirely unrepresentative field of WSJ readers and other bloggers viewed a successful life as one that involved a satisfying but not all-consuming career and ample family time.  (And maybe even some time for culture, hobbies, travel, friends, and civic involvement.)  Maybe not "having it all" - but making compromises to achieve some balance. 

To me, this discussion comes at an interesting moment.  It coincides, on the national stage, with Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings.  And on the personal front, with my annual (or sometimes biennial) meet-up with my four closest girlfriends from law school. (I head off to Chicago tomorrow night!)

On the national stage, Sotomayor, barring a meltdown (as Republic Senator Lindsey Graham put it), is poised to become only the third female justice ever on the Supreme Court, and, of course, the first Latina woman. Now, in Welch's view, that might not equate to being a CEO of a Fortune 500 company (the pay and perks are much less lucrative), but it's certainly the top prize in the legal world. And Sotomayor appears to have put in the kind of grueling hours that Welch would require for his executives.

Bringing it back to work-life balance, it's not surprising that Sotomayor, who often works from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. - as The New York Times reported - does not have children. Sotomayor does, though, appear to have friends and interests such as opera and baseball. (The Times' emphasis on "loneliness" as Sotomayor's "frequent companion" seems overdone. Would the story have had the same angle if Sotomayor were a man?)

While some women in the legal profession manage to balance their high-powered careers with a family, many of those with the "top" jobs in the legal world don't.  See, e.g., Janet Reno, Janet Napolitano, and many of the partners at large corporate law firms.  (On the other side, of course, there are women like Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Madeleine Albright, and Hillary Cinton, who have managed to reach the pinnacle and have children.  But they may be outliers, each having purused a very unique route to their high positions.) The phenomenon of women supposedly "opting out" of the most demanding legal jobs highlights this.  (For a sense of this issue,  check out the transcripts from this March 2009 Yale Law School conference: "Opt Out" or Pushed Out? Are Women Choosing to Leave the Legal Profession?  ).

On the personal front, it resonates as well.  My law school girlfriends and I graduated nearly 20 (aagh!) years ago from a "top ten" law school. At least some of us were on the law review and worked at demanding internships. After we graduated, all five of us accepted offers for clerkships with federal judges or prestigious law firms. Although we were never on Sonia Sotomayor's star track, we did have high professional aspirations. But, for the past few years, a big topic of discussion when we get together is what we've termed our "declining ambition." 

Don't get me wrong, though. We're not opting out. We have careers and are (well, I can say I am) happy with our career choices  - two in-house counsel, two government attorneys, one small firm partner. We take pride and interest - most days - in our work. And while we all have different working arrangements, I know we all work very hard at times. But the responsibilities and joys of children, spouses, and personal interests, have led all five of us to choose what Welch labels the "nice career" rather than the "top of the path."  The implications of such choices for our lives, for women lawyers, and women in the workforce generally are far beyond this post (and my bedtime).  I'm looking forward, though, to lots of discussion this weekend about all these issues with my friends.

Comments

[EllenOlenska]

As a 44 year old professional banker, I'm afraid I fall firmly in Welch's camp feeling that he is telling the truth, just one most of us don't want to hear or believe.

I also think there's a whole social conditioning of women (in addition to the biological time clock) that tells us to "help people/do some good" etc that side-tracks us from grabbing the brass ring.

My sister, who is 6 years younger and I discuss this fairly often. I contend that the funnel narrows a great deal at the top and for many women, stepping out/sideways/off is a way to always say "I could have been a contender" but never actually have to be in the often ugly free for all to see if you make it to the top...I see too many women who say " I worked at a top law firm/company/in medicine but stopped after a year or two to really take care of my family." It lets you stay in "coulda been" without ever knowing if that's how it would have turned out.

My sister contends that women see the top, think it isnt "all that much" and opt out.

I mentor MBA's at a top 10 business school and more than a few of the 25-30 year olds are quite sure they'll be equals, maintaining they are treated that way in class. Then I gently point out to them they they did all the "work" in the group project and let the guys present when the the hiring folks (like myself) are present at the case competition.

I used to think it was just that "our" generation was sort of caught between the 50's housewife and the early women's lib set and that it would be just us that would be challenged. Now I'm not so sure. And they're simply arent enough of us staying in the ugly fight to get to the top to be able to change the outcome for future generations.

It's a tough choice for everyone, if we all had a crystal ball and knew our families would come out alright, marriages intact etc we might make one set of choices...but what about when we guess wrong?

Stacy, as always I love your articles!

[Lisa Newman]

Stacy, I really liked your article. As you know, Jeff worked at GE for 12 years and during that time, we attended many GE social events. One of the interesting things that occurred during those years was the highly publicized divorce of Gary Wendt, CEO of GE Capital at the time. His wife, Lorna, successfully sued for a big settlement based on the concept that without her help as his wife, Gary would have never had as much business success and financial reward. She ultimately set up her own foundation, Equality in Marriage, and works as an advocate for women's equality in marriage and divorce. I was thinking about all this as I read your article and also about the fact that Jack Welch (who has had his own very public marital difficulties) created an "all or nothing" culture at GE that rewards great performance. But his definition of "success" is narrow and focuses on business success. That works for him and for people like him, both men and women. But I don't think it's wrong for other people, both men and women, to choose a different definition for success. That may be taking time off to be with your children, or working in a different industry from the high pressured ones, or working flex time. We don't all have to agree on the definition of "success." It's a very subjective word. Jack Welch's definition of success applies to a very small percentage of population who are very driven, very stressed out, and who spend very little time with their families. That's not the right choice for everyone.

[Stacy]

Thanks, Lisa and Ellen for your comments. Lisa, your point about how the "all or nothing" culture Jack Welch created at GE worked well for some small percentage of men and women, but not for many others, resonates with me. I do think that "success" is very subjective, and for me a "successful" life is one is one that builds in balance and allows for fulfillment in many different ways. But I agree with Ellen that, in our society, success is usually defined as having an important job, making bundles money, wielding a lot of power, etc. and that there is something wrong with the fact that a lot of highly intelligent and talented women never try for these things because of societal pressures and expectations. There does seem to be a return to a new traditionalism that puts many women in supporting or even inferior roles. Still, Ellen, I agree with your sister that many women see what's at the top - and look at the huge sacrifices people make to get there - and say no thanks. That's certainly how I feel. Nonetheless, I am very excited when someone like Sonia Sotomayor does go for the top!