I recently spoke to a group of young professionals about career development. Inevitably the topic of work-life balance came up as it always does. A conversation with a good friend today reminded me of it and now I share my response with you.
Work-life balance. I hear about it all the time. People seek it. People feel victimized by it. People think it's a myth. I think it's ridiculous.
You don't need work-life balance. You need to balance your life just like you balance your checkbook. You wouldn't go to the bank and say, "oh, I just couldn't say no. They just kept expecting more and more from me and I just couldn't say no." They'd laugh out loud and promptly close your account. You would be considered a risky investment and shown the door. Hear me now - you are a risk to yourself if you can't balance your life.
Life is the whole thing. We eat, sleep, love, breathe, dream, play, and work. Each is a part of the larger whole. To utter the term "work-life balance" suggests that your work is as large as your life; to lament that you've been defeated by it suggests that you've allowed your work to be larger than your life.
You have 24 hours to spend each day and you are in charge of how they are spent. Decide what is important to you and spend your hours with purpose.
Balance your life.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The New York Times is Falling in the Polls
The New York Times has lost a bit of my admiration by publishing an opinion piece by Peggy Klaus called 'Neither Mice Nor Men' (March 5, 2010). The article is about women's inferior role in the work place and cites a corporate woman who says, "Even in this day and age, a guy barks out an order and he is treated like someone who is in charge and a leader. But when a woman communicates in the exact same way, she's immediately labeled assertive, dominating, aggressive and overbearing."
Let's be clear about something - ANYONE who barks out an order is perceived as assertive, dominating, aggressive and overbearing. Man or woman. Barking isn't widely regarded as the premiere way to treat teammates in the workplace. If we tolerate that we are all in trouble. It certainly isn't the posterchild for how to win friends an influence people!
Klaus goes on to say, "...you'd think that women could finally relax and stop worrying about how they are being perceived at the office. But women must still deal with a well-entrenched double standard when it comes to gender-acceptable behavior." So they kowtow. They button up. They hold back. They regret. They undercut their careers.
NO, NO, NO! This is 2011. There are women leading great, important nations today - Brazil, Germany, Argentina. Good God - do they kowtow? No they do not. They lead with purpose and with supreme interpersonal skills...so do all the men leading great nations. This isn't a double standard, it is THE standard, and such an old standard at that: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
The article's culminating advice to women is as follows:
Ultimately, women must be more mindful and use greater finesse when conveying their messages. We need to become better chameleon communicators and to carefully read our audiences, adjusting our style to the circumstances.
No we don't. The golden rule isn't weighted by gender. To suggest otherwise is to throw us back in time and stunt the world's progress toward equality.
Klaus concludes the article with a little dance of retreat: "Let me be clear. I'm not asking you to give up your soul - but rather to exercise new communication muscles so you can be heard..." I cannot argue with the call to expand communication might - we all could use a little fine-tuning. But I will argue that the very word chameleon suggests that we be something we are not - that we change our colors to fit the scenery. A chameleon changes its colors when threatened - it blends in for protection. So shall we camouflage ourselves now, in the halls of our corporations and in the boardrooms we fill - in the boardrooms we lead!? Shall we not be who we are? Shall we fear for our survival?
'Neither Mice Nor Men' has made a mountain out of a mole hill (or a mouse hole). Klaus' call to sharpen our communication skills is lost in the victim mentality portrayed. She reintroduces the suffrage of our past in effort to sensationalize something in our present. Workplace communication is unisex - gender plays no role. We either treat each other with respect or we don't. And if we don't, perhaps the label of 'bitch' or 'jackass' is well deserved.
Read it for yourself and let me know what you think: Neither Mice Nor Men
Let's be clear about something - ANYONE who barks out an order is perceived as assertive, dominating, aggressive and overbearing. Man or woman. Barking isn't widely regarded as the premiere way to treat teammates in the workplace. If we tolerate that we are all in trouble. It certainly isn't the posterchild for how to win friends an influence people!
Klaus goes on to say, "...you'd think that women could finally relax and stop worrying about how they are being perceived at the office. But women must still deal with a well-entrenched double standard when it comes to gender-acceptable behavior." So they kowtow. They button up. They hold back. They regret. They undercut their careers.
NO, NO, NO! This is 2011. There are women leading great, important nations today - Brazil, Germany, Argentina. Good God - do they kowtow? No they do not. They lead with purpose and with supreme interpersonal skills...so do all the men leading great nations. This isn't a double standard, it is THE standard, and such an old standard at that: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
The article's culminating advice to women is as follows:
Ultimately, women must be more mindful and use greater finesse when conveying their messages. We need to become better chameleon communicators and to carefully read our audiences, adjusting our style to the circumstances.
No we don't. The golden rule isn't weighted by gender. To suggest otherwise is to throw us back in time and stunt the world's progress toward equality.
Klaus concludes the article with a little dance of retreat: "Let me be clear. I'm not asking you to give up your soul - but rather to exercise new communication muscles so you can be heard..." I cannot argue with the call to expand communication might - we all could use a little fine-tuning. But I will argue that the very word chameleon suggests that we be something we are not - that we change our colors to fit the scenery. A chameleon changes its colors when threatened - it blends in for protection. So shall we camouflage ourselves now, in the halls of our corporations and in the boardrooms we fill - in the boardrooms we lead!? Shall we not be who we are? Shall we fear for our survival?
'Neither Mice Nor Men' has made a mountain out of a mole hill (or a mouse hole). Klaus' call to sharpen our communication skills is lost in the victim mentality portrayed. She reintroduces the suffrage of our past in effort to sensationalize something in our present. Workplace communication is unisex - gender plays no role. We either treat each other with respect or we don't. And if we don't, perhaps the label of 'bitch' or 'jackass' is well deserved.
Read it for yourself and let me know what you think: Neither Mice Nor Men
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)