Priority of family to business

[pluckyduck]

Encouraging sign of the times (and why I think the fathers today are light years above the norm of the previous generation).

I was having a meeting yesterday with a Big Wig executive - the seniorest of VPs of the single National Brand Name Pen Company that comes to mind first - I'm not willing to actually name by name here....

Anyway, a few of us were meeting about picking up a new product line they were introducing. Serious, intense conversation about production capacity, etc. Big Wig's cell phone rings, he ignores it, we keep on talking.

Five minutes later, phone rings again...he creeps the phone out of his pocket and peeks at the ID. He throws his hand up "Sorry, it's my daughter. I have to take this!

Everybody stops and smiles.

He answers "Hi, baby!" (sweet, Daddy tone of voice)

Pulls himself away from the table...turns out, daughter was just buying her first car, and he had to talk her through the insurance purchase.



I love fathers. He had his priorities right.

Andrea

[lynnzop[$]]

Ah that's so sweet.

I've seen a number of high-ranking execs who have taken calls from their kids and it's cool to see them just CHANGE when they realize who it is on their phone.

Lynn

[poseidon]

Putting family business ahead of company business is always the smart move -- so long as what is going on is legitimate.

In other words, if the daughter calls her daddy six times a day just to say "Hello" then I'm not sure that the wise move is to interrupt the meeting to say "Hello" back to the daughter. The easiest way to avoid this problem is to have scheduled times where the family calls in (say during a scheduled break like lunch, etc.), and any other time that they call in must mean that it is urgent.

I've already shown Michelle that she is more important than my job. When her grandfather died last August, I informed my boss that I was driving her back home to attend the funeral. He told me that since it wasn't immediate family that I couldn't have funeral leave. I responded that I've given up far too many vacations for the sake of the company and the company is just going to have to make the sacrifice this time. I'm also due to leave at a moment's notice for three weeks when the next weather disaster occurs this side of the Missouri River. Michelle is due in for surgery in May. I've already informed them that I will be there come hell or high water to be at the hospital when she's in surgery and be there when she wakes up.

Family business always comes first. In the worst case, you can always find a new job. Finding a new family isn't something I want to even begin to think about.

[frazzledspice]

Fathers HAVE to be that way if mothers are working full-time, too.

They can't rely on the grandparents....if the grandparents are in their 50's or early 60's, they're probably working full-time, too.

Or they might live hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

I admire the marriages of today where parents start out sharing equal responsibilities.

When I got married in 1970, most Moms stayed home and raised their families.

My husband did nothing around the house, and very little to raise the kids. He coached a team and was even President of the soccer club, but that was it.

When I started working, he would whine and complain if I had to get there early and he had to get the kids ready for school. Because HIS job was the important job (and, of course, since he had concentrated on his career all his life, he made tons more money than I did, and we didn't even need the money I made.)

Even now, when our youngest child is THIRTEEN, I still realize that whatever I do will have to fit around his schedule. And that I will do the orthodontist appointments, the carpooling, the pediatrician, the haircuts, the teachers' conferences, etc., etc., etc., and that if I can't, then I should find a job that's more accommodating.

Of course, since I had to move across the country with him three times in five years, I had to find new jobs anyway.

I'm interviewing tomorrow for the public communications coordinator position in the Benedictine Monastery/School 45 miles away. I know they want me, but I have to negotiate the best telecommuting arrangement I can. Self-employment is getting old....

My husband has spent all 26 years of parenthood with no real responsibilities, and if I can't handle it all, our daughter will have crooked teeth, acne, and straggly hair. She won't get on drill team cause she'll miss the rehearsals. Her homework won't be done and she'll be late for school.

It is depressing, but I realize I'm a victim of the times I grew up and got married in.

My husband isn't entirely negative....our relationship has worked pretty well over the years, but now I'm ready to do more, and it's really hard with our unwritten contract.

[Redlass]

Andrea, I think you're right. People are beginning to realize that family issues aren't just women's issues, they are men's and women's issues.

The vice president who is in charge of operations in our office (in other words, he is the highest ranking member of the company in this state) is great about leaving to see his kids' soccer games, pick them up from day care, and attend all their school functions. Work definitely comes behind family and he expects all of us to have similar priorities. It has paid off for him too--he has a very loyal staff.

[amykhar]

Businesses are going to need to adjust to the needs of society, and it's nice to see that it's starting to happen. However, we still have a LONG way to go.

Schools, doctors, dentists, etc. still have not adjusted to the lifestyle of two working parents. Until that happens, a lot of the strain is on parents who have to juggle the needs of kids with the needs of their jobs.

And Jeff, I don't think its the emergencies that define how family friendly a business is. If you actually had to FIGHT to be present for a wife's surgery then that is not a place to work. It's the daily grind that defines a family friendly work place.

It's the little things that will kill you. Doctors appointments, sick kids, dentist appointments, parent-teacher conferences, etc. My husband's current company is HORRIBLE when it comes to being family friendly. His current employer, Verizon, makes it almost impossible for him to take time off for a sick child or schedule his life. He doesn't get a work schedule for the week until the middle of the prior week. His hours change every week too. There is no way for him to schedule anything for the family.

Bob's attitude has changed. He wants to be involved in his childrens' lives. However, his employer is making that nearly impossible.

Fraz, your situation is tougher. Not only do you have to find a family friendly company, but you also have to retrain your husband, yourself, and your children. Some of the things that were possible before you wanted to work just aren't possible anymore. Trying to be a supermom will only make you tired, frustrated, and miserable. Your daughter is going to have to take on new responsibilities too. Homework, drill team, and getting to school on time are going to have to be hers to organize. It's just your job to teach her how to do that. On the one hand, it may seem that she's getting the short end of the stick compared to your other kids. But look at it this way - by learning to take more responsibility for her life, she will probably be more mature and responsible than your other kids at the same age.

Amy

[poseidon]

Originally posted by amykhar
And Jeff, I don't think its the emergencies that define how family friendly a business is. If you actually had to FIGHT to be present for a wife's surgery then that is not a place to work. It's the daily grind that defines a family friendly work place.

Amy,

I'm working from within. Actually I think that what happened went off fairly well. You have to understand that I am in an industry that is run by past-retirement age men. My company is no exception to the industry standard.

I don't mind fighting to show them the greater good. I was perfectly willing to walk away from my job if I didn't get what I wanted. I think that's where the difference lies. If I would have fought and they would have said "No" and I would have said to Michelle, "Sorry honey but I can't guarantee that I'll be there for your surgery" then I would have demonstrated right then and there that my career was more important than she was. That's the last thing that I ever want to do.

Since I'm the one who introduced my company to the idea that adjustors should have computers (this is in 1992!!!!!) and now all of us nationwide have them, since I'm the one who proved to my company that you didn't need an adjustor with prior experience to succeed (I was the first one hired -- nationwide -- who was actually company-trained -- now we hire them all the time and train them), I'm not afraid to tackle this one, too.

It isn't the business that's family-friendly that is so important to me, Amy. It's the family-member that's family-friendly that counts.

Jeff

[pluckyduck]

I spent some time thinking about this thread last night. (Probably too much time, but family/work cultural issues are one of my pet themes.)

Why did the Big Wig business/family priority choice make me so happy?

It's symbolic of the cultural shift I see all around me. I'm an old lady (nearly 41 ), and in my lifetime, the swing I've seen is nothing short of revolutionary, in the real sense of that word.

Computers don't make policies, people do -- real living people with real living families. When Big Wigs are changing diapers and juggling sick days for kids and stopping business meetings to take phone calls from teenage daughters who need daddy's help, the work/family life connection can improve for everybody.

We've talked before about interoffice romance/marriage. The old thinking is to discourage it, and many companies still have that policy. Some companies forbid married folks from working in the same place. There are a number of sound arguments that can be made for that - here's one from the other side.

Really Big Corporation - two of my best friends are top management in a large division of a Really Big (fast growing) Corporation. They're married (she having brought him into the company quite a few years back). The company actively encourages married couples to work there. Why? Despite the obvious drawbacks (the reasons other companies forbid the same practice this one encourages), this Really Big Corporation finds that the quality of work/family life is improved greatly when the mother and the father are working at the same place. Juggling sick days for kids, for instance, leaves two people to decide which one is needed most in the office that day - not two people with competing careers at different companies counting who took off last.

In our little company, the tradition of having a high priority on family comes right from the top. Our company is owned by a married couple who raised four boys. The wife wasn't actively involved in the company when the kids were young (she was an RN with her own career), but the husband, who was busy building the company from the ground with his brother, always made his boys a priority. It didn't matter if the world was caving in, he was coaching the Little League game at 4:00, talk to him tomorrow, you know?

I don't need to elaborate on what kind of attitude I've built my division with. Ya'll know I care about business and ya'll know I care about my boys...and other people's kids too. My first responsibility (with my work hat on) is to the bottom line of the business, not other people's kids - but it isn't hard for me to make a lot of decisions that are either good for (or neutral to) the bottom line that do help other people have a better family life. All in a day's work And I have complete support from the PTB above me. We like kids. (and dogs, there are often latchkey dogs running around after hours)

How does that help Bob get off next week to take one of the girls to the doctor? It doesn't. This is a revolution that is happening as the right people with the right sense of priorities get into place and can make decisions that balance work and family....and it requires some out of the box thinking that certain companies don't specialize in.

Things are heading in the right direction. Some companies are much further ahead than others.

Andrea

[pluckyduck]

Jeff wrote:

It isn't the business that's family-friendly that is so important to me, Amy. It's the family-member that's family-friendly that counts.

That's pretty wise, Jeff. Goes completely to my position that company policies aren't nearly as important as company attitudes (from whence policy eventually comes).

I remember reading a book (sorry, I don't remember which one), on the work/family subject, that told of a company with a host of "family friendly" policies where the culture was "you better not use them!". I believe paternity leave was one of the major

How does that culture change? It changes when individuals eminate the attitude that you laid out. It changes from the ground up and the top down and middle out. It takes people, not edicts.

Andrea

[murasaki]

Believe it or not, the Army is actually getting with the program somewhat.

All the lieutenant colonels getting battalion commands go through a commander's course and it's encouraged that their spouses come to this course to. One of the classes taught in this course is balancing professional obligations with family priorities and individual priorities. The major message is that they each need to have a balance between time spent at their job, time spent with their families and time spent on themselves.

Unfortunately, people aren't hearing this class until they've got 15+ years in the Army. However, my battalion commander re-taught the class to his officers so it does trickle down.

I think there's still a lot of lip-service paid to the importance of family. I see the people who say their family is important and that are also work-aholics and stay past 8pm. And yes, sometimes the Army demands strange hours and extra work from us, but most of my career, I've been able to leave at a decent hour (4:30-6pm), though I do think my day starts earlier than most.

I also think that Army leadership got a wake up call when all the captains hit their obligation-end-date and got out because they didn't like the hours, the bad command climates, and never seeing their kids. Right now we're short on captains and George and I can practically write our own tickets because the Army needs us so badly.

So, I get my work done during the day in order to go home at a decent hour. I take advantage of the lip-service paid to families and I don't think I'm alone in this regard, especially among the younger officers. We have other options and the leadership is starting to recognize that (former company grade Army officers seem to be a hot item on the job market because we have managerial experience).

We don't have kids yet, but I don't see things changing. I'm not willing to be supermom and work and do everything else and George knows it. We're in this together and both of us will be pulling our weight as far as housework, parenting, everything. I'm lucky that we make a comparable amount of money so I was in a position to negotiate for this when we got married. And right now, my job (grad school, then West Point) is more important than his, and he knows it. My career is also more important because I have a better file and better chances of promotion. It certainly has helped in establishing the ground rules.

Frazz - Find a copy of "Love Between Equals" by Dr. Pepper Schwartz. It's about marriage (peer, near-peer and traditional) and very interesting. It might give you some insights into how to re-negotiate things with your husband.

--naomi

[frazzledspice]

Andrea, it's one thing to praise the owner of a company for taking off for his sons' Little League games.

But if that same company is known for capricious reorganizations, layoffs, or shifts (and what company ISN'T these days? If you know of one, please let me know and we'll apply) the owner's employees aren't going to feel that same comfort level.

Instead, they'll be at their desks, perhaps taking time to call the baseball field to offer their child encouragement or find out the score. They'll smile at the owner as he leaves, and know that they could never feel the same freedom.

Renegotiating at the current time would never work with my husband. At this point, he'll be 55 in 8 months. His boss just lost his job at 57 or 58...why? Well, he said that he was the "highest paid" so that cutting his job made the biggest economic impact (Warning to you young folks out there--getting raises is dangerous.)

My husband lost two jobs in four years, and was unemployed for a total of 13 months between the two. At this point, he believes, with all sincerity, that corporate America is a huge minefield (so do I.)

Having been at his current job for two years, seven months, he is beginning to relax a little (at least till his boss was axed for no understandable reason--the two of them had just renegotiated a contract that saved the company millions of dollars.) But I don't think that he would ever relax enough to feel that HE could be the one to leave work to get my daughter at school or a practice, at least not on a semi-regular basis (he has done so in emergencies.)

And Amy, it's not a matter of my daughter remembering her drill team practices, it's a matter of transportation. Or a matter of priorities (if she is on the drill team, it will make our lives more inconvenient.)

She has ADD, and her organizational skills are not up to a 13 year-old level, but she has been making great strides this year, partly because she's in a Catholic JHS that's smaller and more structured. The downside is that there aren't any school buses to get her back and forth.

Anyway, I am going to think optimistically about the possibility of telecommuting part time and present my best case. 45 minutes each way is a big distance on country roads (I know you commuted that far in the past.)

[pluckyduck]

Andrea, it's one thing to praise the owner of a company for taking off for his sons' Little League games.

But if that same company is known for capricious reorganizations, layoffs, or shifts (and what company ISN'T these days? If you know of one, please let me know and we'll apply) the owner's employees aren't going to feel that same comfort level.

Ahhhh! Maryanne, you've had a bunch of bad breaks, but that isn't everybody's experience. Sure there are companies that are tumultous, but plenty of them aren't!

One of my points here is the changes happen because of people. The divide that you see between what happens "above" and "below" isn't my experience.

Small example:

In our area school Halloween parades are a big deal. I've got two kids at two different schools, so Halloween morning (hell the entire day) is a big adventure. I could, I suppose, just quietly take the day off so nobody knew what I was doing...but this is the good stuff. I purposely make sure that everybody knows what I am doing and why. This last year we had half a dozen people in the division making arrangements to come in late (it worked out fine ) so they could catch Halloween parades at school. Most of them were parents, but one of them was an aunt who wanted to catch two parades of her nieces and nephews.

I'm no saint. We didn't call a work holiday so that people could attend kids' Halloween parades. Everybody took time that was due to them or made up the hours another way... but we did make school Halloween parades a laudable reason for rearranging the departments' time schedule.



This is how the change happens. People.

Andrea

[poseidon]

[qoute]Anyway, I am going to think optimistically about the possibility of telecommuting part time and present my best case. 45 minutes each way is a big distance on country roads (I know you commuted that far in the past.)[/quote]

Try 1 hour 15 minutes, no snow, no traffic (except for the last ten miles) each way every day on mountain roads. That's what my commute was for four years. If you like where you live (as I did), it's definitely worth it, and you'll be amazed at what you can accomplish in your mind as you're driving. I used my time in the car as my "quiet time" with God.

But Amy brings up an excellent point. You've had some tough breaks, but what you experience isn't the norm.

I guess I'm in a different situation. If I wanted to take off time to see a kid's baseball game, I work from home and on the road -- I could do that. I don't need my boss's permission.

The only time I come up against scheduling issues is right now -- when it is my turn to be "on call" waiting for the next natural disaster to strike. I have no clue when it's coming, and when it does I'm basically given enough time to do a load of laundry and to get on the road and start driving 8-15 hours. Once I do my "tour of duty" then I can safely make all the plans I want into the future until my name tops the roster again.

Since my name is next on the list, I stressed the importance to my boss that despite company and weather problems, I will be at Michelle's side when they take her into surgery and I will be at her side when she recovers from surgery. Surely they can juggle the roster for something of this importance (since three people at any time in each region are "on call"). Lord knows over the years I've juggled my schedule to accomodate their needs.

Jeff

[frazzledspice]

What people who are thirties experience as the norm and what the people I know (late forties, early fifties) experience as the norm are two different things.

Fifteen years from now, you may all be surprised at how the norm has shifted. I hope for your sakes (and the sake of my own children) things are as stable for you at 50 as they were at 35.

Jeff, when you're single and in your twenties, maybe a commute of 1 hour 15 minutes each way is OK.

If I spent that much time alone with God in a car, this is what He'd be saying: "You have laundry to do. You have to get Julie to dance practice. The dog has an ear infection. The gutters need cleaning. You're out of milk." Etc., etc., etc.

I'll bet you really like not commuting now.

[poseidon]

Fraz,

I don't commute into an office. I still put close to 1000 miles a week on my car, though. So I'm in the car as much (if not more) than I was when I was commuting.

I also know a lot of people your age and older. Most of my friends are in your age group. It's awfully strange how, if what you portray is the norm, that these people don't share your same experiences.

Sure, the "norm" is always changing. In the 1950s, it wasn't the "norm" for everyone to own a single television set. Today, it is the "norm" to have more than one TV in your home. I buck the trend -- I just have one.

Until about 1970, it was the "norm" for a family to have a single car. Today, the "norm" is for each driver to have his/her own car.

Jeff

[Redlass]

I'm not so sure that the differences in what we experience are simply tied to age.

My parents are nearly 60 (I can't remember their exact age, but they are definitely older than 55 and younger than 60). My father did equal shares of the child-rearing, housekeeping, cooking, etc. This was true even when my mom was at home full-time (which she was for only the first six years of my life--and I'm the oldest of two).

I always knew that if I were sick, had something going on at school, or anything else, my parents would be there. My brother has some pretty severe learning disabilities and my parents had to spend a lot of time fighting the system and getting care for him in an age where not much was known about disabilities. If that meant they had to leave work early because the school was arranging a conference between a therapist, teacher, and administrator, they did. There was never any question about whether they would take care of the needs of their children or the needs of their business.

My father has been with his company since 1964 and my mother has been with her company since 1976. There were certainly promotions my father was passed over for, but both of them have done very well and survived all sorts of layoffs, reorganizations, and buyouts (especially my mom--her company has been bought out five or six times in the past 10 years). Their job security was never threatened by their putting their family first. In fact, they earned the respect of their co-workers and their bosses for having consistent ethics and being very firm about their priorities.

Yes, different people experience different things as norms. It's why I personally find it an extremely encouraging trend that more people are behaving the way my parents behaved in the 70s and 80s (and considering they will have to care for my brother for the rest of their lives and that they care for elderly relatives, I suppose you could say the 90s and 00s as well).

[pluckyduck]

Interesting anecdote to contribute to the thread. We had a relatively new salesperson quit the other week. I just got the full scoop yesterday (not my division).

Married guy in his 40's with a couple school aged kids. He'd been with us about 3 months, coming from a related industry. (Product line isn't the same but the contacts he had in his previous job would, more or less, be the decision maker for our product line too.) Guy was doing great. He hadn't actually written much business to speak of, but that wasn't surprising -- ramp up for salespeople in our industry is long. Everybody felt good about him, talking with really good contacts, making impressive presentations yada yada. He had the talent and the skill set and the contacts to make with us.

Guy quits out of the blue.

Turns out he wasn't getting to spend enough time with his kids. His wife has a high powered job and is the major breadwinner. Guy was used to, in his previous job, being able to work out of his home most of the time. Be there for the kids in the AM, after school, go to soccer games, yada yada. (It would be possible for him, in a sales job with us, to work out of his home more after the first year or two -- in the first year or two, a physical presence is required just to learn the industry, get support, etc.)

The times they are a changin'.

FWIW, nobody's very happy about the sudden departure. The requirements of the job were clearly laid out in many discussions prior to him coming on. Nothing wrong with somebody putting family first, obviously, but with no one hanging over his shoulder (we don't do that) and no changes between the discussions and the reality of the job demands, it would have been nice for him to figure this out before he took three months salary and a lot of people's time.

Still, perfect anecdote, yes?

Andrea

[frazzledspice]

It is encouraging to know that some people have good stories to tell. Seven years ago, that was us.

But now, everywhere I go, all I hear is pain and misery.

Husband's company outsourced with an Indian consulting firm while changing directions computerwise.

Gave them the opportunity to let go their highest paid and most experienced programmers. The consulting firm will probably not be around forever, but when the direction is changed, the company will be able to hire the least experienced lowest paid programmers.

Fifteen years ago, when your parents were raising you, Bridgette, companies would have kept the experienced programmers on and retrained them.

Were these programmers people who had families they spent time with? I'm sure they were.

When I went back to St. Louis, two of my friends were seeking employment. My one friend, the top salesman, whose company wanted to ax him because his wife had a ruptured brain aneurysm and they couldn't afford her insurance premiums.

Another, laid off when Eveready Battery laid off 20% of its sales force. He's been out 7 months (and he's only about 40.)

The direction American business is heading is very disturbing, but until you've actually been bitten in the butt you will probably continue to defend it and make those who feel betrayed, used, and angry feel guilty for not just picking themselves up and getting with the program.

Please don't. These people have enough pain in their lives without you trying to make them feel guilty for expressing it.

Sometimes when I visit this forum I feel as if I'm in Oz, surrounded by Tin Men who haven't become enlightened enough yet to realize that they're lacking hearts.