New Work+Life Flex Normal by Cali Yost
October 1, 2008
09:33 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
With lay-offs for the third quarter totaling 287,142 the largest number since 2005, it’s a perfect time to revisit the discussion of work life flexibility as an alternative downsizing strategy. A number of the top 100 CFOs surveyed as part of the CFO Perspectives on Work Life Flexibility study co-sponsored by Work+Life Fit and BDO Seidman, LLP used strategic flexibility to reduce their workforce without severing ties with employees:
“Approximately a third (38%) of CFOs report that their organizations had reduced their workforce in recent years. While employee lay-offs were most common, almost a third (30%) of CFOs innovatively used flexibility as a workforce reduction strategy that allowed them to stay connected to employees through contract project-based work (24%), reduced hours with full-benefits (3%) and sabbaticals with full benefits (3%).”
As I wrote in an earlier posting on the subject, more companies are using flexibility to creatively downsize, because they recognize that it will be very expensive to rehire when the business cycle improves. Read the comment posted by the Sigma Group, an award-winning New Jersey-based advertising agency that describes how they have used work life flexibility to match talent with cycles of their business.
While it might be better to have a job at a reduced schedule or on a project-basis than no job at all, this use of flexibility as a way to manage the workforce injects a level of uncertainty into the lives of employees that hasn’t existed previously. This means that individuals need to prepare for this potential reality. To that end, fee-only financial planner, Michael Haubrich (http://www.toyourwealth.com/) recommends that everyone have what he calls a “Career Asset Working Capital Fund.” This money is earmarked for the unique financial requirements of career transitions or job status changes including:
1. Skill set maintenance and development:
Use the fund to keep your skills up to date in your current or desired profession beyond any training programs your employer may offer. For example, keep your information systems skills current since they become outdated every two years.
2. Schedule, employment status, or salary changes:
As innovative employers use work life flexibility to stay connected to employees they would have to otherwise cut during tough economic times, this fund can supplement a pay cut from a reduced schedule or a status shift to working as a project contractor.
3. Job changes:
According to the Department of Labor, new workers face nine different job changes over the course of their careers. Those changes may include lags in employment--nearly 20 percent of jobless Americans have been out of work for at least 27 weeks. Last year Salary.com reported that 60 percent of job hunters were not just looking for a new job, they wanted a new career. Yet, the Reinvention Institute reports a career reinvention takes an average three to five years to complete.
4. Career sabbaticals and FMLA:
Only four percent of employers today offer paid sabbaticals, but that may change as employers begin to see them as a way to downsize but stay connected. And even with the Family and Medical Leave Act, jobs may be protected, but salary is not.
When the economy experiences a downturn, work life flexibility provides employers with an opportunity to move beyond the “all or nothing” downsizing solutions that have been the norm for decades. But with this more flexible approach to workforce management, comes a greater degree of uncertainty and inconsistency for which individual employees need to prepare fnancially.
What do you think? Is more flexibility in the way organizations downsize a good thing? And if so, how should individual employees prepare themselves?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 24, 2008
04:44 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
The first thought-provoking finding that I’m going to focus on from the CFO Perspectives on Work Life Flexibility survey of 100 top CFOs that we co-sponsored with BDO Seidman is the fact that CFOs are least likely to see a direct bottom-line impact of work life flexibility on real estate costs and customer satisfaction. Here’s the breakdown of the percentages of CFOs identifying “high” or “moderate” business benefits from flex:
Improving retention 90%
Improving recruitment 88%
Improved employee productivity 75%
Differentiation from competitors 72%
Minimizing environmental impact 68%
Reducing health care costs 53%
Reducing real estate costs 34%
Enhanced customer service 34%
This finding is surprising because the potential savings on real estate costs and the improvements in customer service are two of the more concrete strategic application of work life flexibility. So what opportunities and bottom-line improvements are being missed because most CFOs don’t recognize the business impacts in these two key areas? Here are some examples:
Let’s start by looking at the potential real estate cost savings. Through a combination of telecommuting, sharing of office space, and flexible schedules organizations can both reduce the amount of real estate they need, and use their existing real estate more efficiently.
CIO.com recently interviewed me about Chorus, Inc. a New Jersey-based company with 35 employees that decided to close down their headquarters and an office in Texas and have everyone work from home for a tremendous cost-saving. According to CIO.com, “President and CEO A.J. Schreiber says Chorus can continue to serve customers while simultaneously saving $400,000 a year simply by closing its 15,000 square feet of office space. Sure, breaking leases and telecom contracts is costing the company money, but the long-term savings far outweigh those short-term costs, says Schreiber. ‘We wouldn't have done this if it would have had a negative impact on our ability to serve customers,’ he adds.”
This brings us to customer satisfaction and how work life flexibility can actually improve the way an organization services their clients. In today’s “always on”/ “do more with less” global competitive reality, more and more businesses are having to service customers and clients across time zones. This requires employees to work outside of “normal” business hours. With work life flexibility, an employee can deal with customers in Asia in the evening, during the customer’s business hours, and come in later the next day. The customer is happy, and the employee isn’t burned out. Currently, too many employees are trying to work their standard work day, and the cover foreign clients after hours.
The benefit to real estate and customer service from work life flexibility can be simultaneous, as demonstrated by a group of accountants who telecommuted from BDO Seidman, LLP’s Houston office while living in Austin, Texas. Because of their physical presence in Austin, these accountants were able to win business from local Austin-based clients even though BDO didn’t have a physical office in the city at the time. Recently, the firm decided to open an office to handle the increased level of business generated by this group of telecommuters.
Work life flexibility is critical business strategy for achieving bottom-line results in many areas but it requires employees and leaders to rethink the way work is done and life is managed. This is why “life” needs to be an upfront part of the strategic equation. It involves moving outside of the traditional “this is work,” and “this is life” mindset and structure. But the innovation in real estate cost savings and improved customer service will not occur unless CFOs recognize the potential, and right now, according to the survey, they don’t.
What real estate cost savings and client services benefits do you see from work life flexibility? And how can we make more CFOs aware of the potential?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 11, 2008
05:39 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
A majority of 100 CFOs interviewed in a recent study by Work+Life Fit, Inc and BDO Seidman, LLP, a national professional services firm, believe the business impacts of work life flexibility go beyond talent to workflow, cost savings and resource management. The 2008 Perspectives on Work Life Flexibility is the first study to specifically target CFO perspectives, professional and personal, on work life flexibility. Conducted by an independent research firm, the study is based on interviews with a random sample of 100 CFOs from companies with over 5,000 employees.
The good news: a majority of CFOs do look beyond the talent-related impacts of work life flexibility and see many, but not all, of the business benefits. The bad news: there is a wide gap between CFO awareness of the potential impacts of flexibility and the strategic action being taken inside of their organizations that would translate into business results.
How do we close that awareness-action gap? And what does it mean for how we manage work, direct our lives, and grow our businesses in today’s “always on,” “do more with less” global competitive work reality? Over the next couple of weeks I will focus on specific implications of findings from the CFO Work Life Flexibility study, including:
• What opportunities are being missed because CFOs are least likely to recognize the business impacts of work life flexibility related to real estate cost savings and client service enhancement;
• Why having only 39% of CFOs work for organizations with a formal approach to work life flexibility will seriously hinder achieving bottom line benefits;
• Why the strategic impact of work life flexibility will be limited if over 60% of senior leaders in organizations with a formal approach to work life flexibility think it is an “HR perk;” and
• Where should the responsibility for and the championship of flexibility reside if a majority of CFOs believe direct business line involvement is critical to success, and HR can’t be the only sponsor of flexibility.
Bottom line: If CFOs “get” the broad business benefits of work life flexibility, what does that mean for how we talk about, position and execute work life flexibility inside of organizations in order to effectively translate that awareness into action-based results? What do you think?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
August 27, 2008
12:27 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
In an election year of many “firsts,” one major “first” to celebrate is the fact that, for the first time, both presidential candidates have made work life flexibility part of their official economic platforms. This is huge!
Big Wins
On one level, I’m not surprised. In December of last year, more than 60% of the respondents to our 2007 Annual Work+Lfie Fit Reality Check said they believe the next President should introduce legislation that would make it easier for organizations to offer and individuals to have more work life flexibility. But I never imagined that both McCain and Obama would go as far as putting work life flexibility front and center in their presidential economic agendas. The symbolic importance is remarkable.
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. Work life flexibility is a serious, business-critical strategy, but unfortunately too few businesses understand this fact, and still see it as an HR policy or perk. Hopefully this will put work life flexibility on the strategic radar-screen where it belongs.
Generally, their approaches are pretty similar. They would both:
• Spearhead efforts promote flexibility in organizations, and
• Continue to support FMLA, with Obama saying he would expand it; and
• Promote telework.
McCain also specifically addresses the need to deal with some of the systemic challenges to successful work life flexibility such as modernizing labor, making health care and retirement benefits more portable. While Obama talks more specifically about expanding child and dependent care supports.
And Some Misses…
Yes, there’s much to celebrate. However, there are couple points where, in my opinion, they are both missing the mark.
First miss: For the love of all things good and true, there’s one thing both Obama and McCain could do that would have an immediate impact--stop using the term work/life balance! There’s no right answer or “balance” that looks the same for all of us, only the “fit” between our unique work and personal realities. And every single one of us is completely different.
For too many people work/life balance means a magical, 50-50 split between work and life that they never achieve, so they feel badly. How can you be flexible and see the possibilities for your own work and life if you are only focused on the “balance” you perpetually don’t have? You can’t!
As part of their work life flexibility agendas, both candidates need to reframe the goal away from “balance,” toward using flexibility to meet our personal needs and the needs of our job today and throughout our life and careers. And that the solution will look different for all of us.
Second miss: Work life flexibility is a strategy we all need to use to manage our individual work+life fit, especially in the “always on,” “do more with less” global, competitive reality in which we operate. Unfortunately, both candidates focus primarily on families. Families absolutely need flexibility, but McCain and Obama are missing the opportunity to make the issue broader and more far-reaching.
The truth is we need to fundamentally rethink the way we work, manage our lives and run our businesses. By limiting the focus on “families” I’m afraid we will avoid having the real, yet harder, conversation and not undertake the difficult work to make these broader, fundamental changes. The work life flexibility debate must include everyone no matter what stage of life they are in. In the end, this will help families more.
So, join me. Take a moment to contemplate what it means that, whether it’s Barack Obama or John McCain, our next President has stated publicly work life flexibility is important to our future economic success. I believe it means a lot.
What do you think? Do you agree their support is an important “first?”
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
August 21, 2008
12:37 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Everyday there’s another story extolling the virtues of the four-day workweek, or four, ten-hour days, as the answer to our energy problems. In fact, last week CNN devoted an entire segment to the Utah state government’s mandatory four-day workweek which began August 4th. Before the four-day workweek gains more steam as the answer, I want to urge caution. It is an answer, but not the answer. The distinction is subtle but very important.
Thirteen years of experience developing flexibility strategies has shown me that most one-size-fits-all, mandatory flexibility programs eventually don’t work. They are either modified dramatically or eliminated (see Ohio’s Flex-Gone-Wrong posting). And, the hangover is an enduring organizational bias that “flexibility doesn’t work,” when in fact it does if developed and implemented the right way.
What will work? The four-day workweek needs to be one of many types of flexibility within a broader, well-developed, process-based strategy The business case can include, but must goes beyond, “saving energy.” And the implementation needs to involve a process that tailors flexibility in how, when or where work is done to the realities of an individual’s life and job.
Perhaps in Utah, one of the work realities a person might have to consider in their flex plan would be energy savings, but it can’t be the only reality. (See Barbara Rose’s article in the Chicago Tribune where I am one of a number of work life flex experts to comment on the subject).
The typical problems with one-size-fits-all, four-day workweeks are already starting to crop up (see USA Today and CNN), specifically:
1) Some work probably does have to happen on Fridays: Success assumes that it will be okay for the government not to be open for business on Friday and that people will adapt. There’s a strong possibility that the government will find certain aspects of the business do need to happen on Friday, and they’ll have to adapt the four-week program accordingly. In fact, they’ve already exempted parts of the Utah government from the four-day workweek for this reason.
2) It’s very hard for people with dependent care responsibilities: People who have children of all ages, or care for an elder struggle with four-day workweeks. For many parents, child care hours don’t correspond to the 10-hour day. That includes child care centers as well as before and after-school programs. Plus, often if there are extended hours, you usually have to pay a premium as well as continue to pay for your “spot” on Friday.
The four-day workweek doesn’t give parents more time with their kids, because while they may have Fridays off, parents are dropping kids off earlier at child care or at school four days a week. And they are picking them up later. Plus, for parents of school-age children, they are missing sports events, and often dinner with their families.
The governor of Utah is correct that young people love four-day workweeks. So let young people without families use it, and allow those with families to consider other types of flexibility.
3) It’s very hard for people who have a long commute particularly those who use public transportation. In Utah, they are already finding this is an issue.
4) The hours don’t always match when people work best which impacts productivity. Some people aren’t morning people and some people aren’t evening people. And that one-hour in the beginning of day or at the end is very hard for them.
5) Finally, it’s probably not going to have that much of an impact on Utah’s overall “carbon footprint.” It may reduce the amount of money the Utah state government pays for energy, but employees will be driving and using energy in their houses on Fridays which will probably offset any overall savings.
Again, four-day workweeks are an effective form of flexibility as long as it’s one of many potential options offered within a broader process-based strategy. Check out how I think we can use flexibility to save energy, by going to my posting “$10 Gas! The National Work+Life Flex Strategy.”
What do you think about the four-day workweek? Do you agree with my caution?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
August 12, 2008
04:17 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
If you read my posting about the “Ongoing Vacation Quandary,” then you know that I tried again this year to make a conscious decision not to work during my summer vacation. I often come back to the subject of vacation around this time, because I believe it’s an important work life subject that doesn’t get enough attention given how critical disconnecting and recharging is to our well-being. And it’s just too hard to do in our hyper-connected, 24/7 world, at least for me.
As promised, I’m going to rate how I did implementing my vacation plan this year. I’m giving myself a B.
My original intention was to check email every other day at the end of the day, and only respond to a work issue if someone on my team contacted me directly. Otherwise, no work.
It helped that the island off the coast of Washington State on which we stayed didn’t have very good cellular reception. If I stood at the right place on my deck I could get emails and calls, but it wasn’t consistent or easy. This imposed some external limits on the amount of work I could do. However, I did end up dealing with one work-related issue that had to be addressed. This required two phone calls and about three rounds of emails.
While it sounds like I stuck relatively close to my plan, I took away credit because although I didn’t do that much work, I still talked about it more than I wanted to. Also, the lack of cellular reception helped limit my work and I want to be able to learn to say “no” on my own. So, I get a B. I will keep trying!
Thankfully, there are other individuals and organizations keeping the vacation quandary on the radar screen. Working Mother just published the results of an online survey of their readers which found (source: Bob Drago of Penn State University):
“What percentage of your allotted vacation days did you take in 2007?”
202 women said they took 100% of their time off. (54%)
78 women said they took 75% of their vacation days. (21%)
36 women said they took 50% of them. (10%)
57 women said they took only 25% of their allotted time. (15%)
Obviously, I’m not the only person who struggles with this, although my issue isn’t taking vacation. It’s not working while on vacation. How did you do this year with your summer vacation? Did you take one? If you did, did you work during your vacation? Did you create a plan in advance? I’d love to hear what grade you gave yourself!
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
August 6, 2008
05:29 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Is it better to have your hours reduced, or lose your job? According to a recent article in The New York Times, more workers are having their hours involuntarily reduced during the current economic “correction” than in the past downturns. These individuals represent “3.7 of all employees, up from 3% a year ago, and the highest level since 1995.” Is this good news, or bad news?
While any wage loss is difficult, I found the news encouraging that organizations are using flexibility as a downsizing strategy. The alternative to a reduced schedule would most likely be no job at all.
These organizations understand that it makes more sense to try to hold on to workers than resort to mass layoffs as they have in the past. It’s too expensive and difficult to rehire and retrain employees. “In decades past, when business soured, companies tended to resort to mass layoffs, hiring people back when better times returned. But as high technology came to permeate American business, companies have grown reluctant to shed workers. Even the lowest wages positions in retail, fast food, banking or manufacturing require computer skills and a grasp of a company’s systems. Several months of training may be needed to get a new employee up to speed.”
So this is progress, right? Well, as is usually the case, it’s good news and bad news. On one hand, a job in the current economy at a reduced schedule might be better than no job at all. However, the article also points out that as involuntary reductions in schedules become more common as a way to manage wage and benefit expenses, the level of uncertainty and risk for employees increase. This is indeed bad news.
Perhaps organizations could reduce the level of uncertainty and risk by first asking individuals to volunteer to reduce their schedules. Another option would be to think about different types of flexibility that would reduce costs, such as leaves of absence or project work. Both would free up hours that could then be allocated to those who would prefer a full-time schedule. Obviously this is not possible in a union work environment where seniority often dictates options. And even with voluntary flexibility, involuntary action may still need to be taken. But more of a partnership between organizations and the individuals who work there, might offset some of the bad news for employees.
What do you think? Is it good news, bad news, or just an imperfect reality that employers are using involuntary flexibility to keep people as the economy tightens?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
July 16, 2008
06:37 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments
“Please be advised that as your parents get older there are no resources to help you to care for them. If you have no money at all, the government will try to help but the process is cumbersome and the wait can be long. If you have a lot of money, the care is there but the quality and availability is not guaranteed. Finally, if you fall somewhere in the middle, you are on your own, so plan accordingly.” This is the public service announcement I think should be broadcast nationwide because people need to know the truth. One of the most disturbing things I learned caring for my mother during her battle with lung cancer was how little support exists to help families. I didn’t realize this fact until I was in it, and I was reminded of the potentially deadly consequences again last week.
The dearth of eldercare led to tragic results last week in Peekskill, NY when a middle-aged bus driver was arrested for the death of his elderly father. According to the article in The New York Times, Theodore Pressman worked as a bus driver while struggling to care for his elderly parents both of whom suffered from dementia. His eldercare strategy involved dropping his parents off at either a coffee shop near their house or a deli near his job and picking them up a few hours later. The police were called a couple of times and warned the son to stop dropping his parents off, but social services were never called. Sadly, one day the son ended up leaving his parents locked in the car. While the mother was able to get out, the father died from the heat. Mr. Pressman is being charged.
Obviously dropping your parents with dementia at the deli isn’t a good way to provide care. However, given my personal experience, I could imagine how lost and desperate he might have been. Maybe he really was doing the best he could due to the lack of care that was affordable and readily available to him. According to the article, all indications were that he loved and doted on his parents, but he also had to get to work. While I don’t condone his approach, I’m compassionate enough to see how it could happen if you didn’t have the financial resources or the support of other caregivers.
This sad story brings me back to a question I find myself asking often: what are we going to do as the population ages? How many more caregivers like Theodore Pressman will fall through the crater-sized cracks in the eldercare system with heartbreaking results for those in their care?
Over the years when I’ve brought up the challenges facing parents trying to find child care, more than a few people have commented, “Well, if you can’t care for your kids don’t have them.” Okay, let’s assume for a minute that argument has merit (which I don’t think it does) and explains why child care should be the problem of individual parents rather than the broader community. How does that argument hold for eldercare? “Well, if you can’t care for your parents don’t have them?” We don’t have any choice in having parents. We all have them. And increasingly the responsibility to care for an ever-increasing number of aging adults is going to fall to all of us. Where are we going to turn for support and help so that we don’t find ourselves making the same misguided, perhaps desperate choices as Theodore Pressman?
Are we as a country and as individuals prepared for the reality of eldercare? Do we truly understand how little support is out there, and are we planning accordingly? What do you think?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
July 9, 2008
09:00 pm | 0 recommendations | 4 comments
A new poll conducted for an organization called Take Back Your Time found that “69% of Americans support a paid vacation law with a large percentage favoring a law guaranteeing three weeks vacation or more.” The poll also found that “among Americans, 28% took no vacation time at all last year and half took a week or less…the median time off was 8.2 days.” There is no doubt that finding time to disconnect from work and to reenergize and reconnect with our loved ones is difficult in a 24/7, high-tech, global reality. A law might be a good, but I’m not sure it’s going to solve the problem.
I’ve blogged about the vacation challenge both from a personal perspective and an expert perspective on a number of occasions over the years. My postings usually coincide with my own vacation struggles (click here and here for links). And, as I read the findings of the new poll, I was reminded that the challenges related to vacation are actually three separate issues:
1) People don’t get paid vacation (according to 2006 Bureau of Labor Statistics, that represented about 25% of workers)
2) People don’t take the vacation they have (according to a 2006 Steelcase study 61% of employees took their allocated vacation)
3) People take vacation, but work while they are on it (in 2006, 55% of men and 43% of women took work on vacation)
The paid vacation law proposed by Take Back Your Time (www.right2vacation.org), would definitely help the 25% of workers who don’t have paid vacation. But what about the other two groups? How is a law going to help the people who don’t take the vacation allocated to them, or the people who work on their vacations?
I see these scenarios played out all of the time inside companies. You have two people, doing the same job, for the same manager. One of them seems to have no trouble taking all of his or her vacation, and the other person hasn’t had a vacation in two years. How is a law going to change that? As a senior executive once said to me, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. I’m not sure what else we can do except schedule a vacation for them.” Unfortunately, if you wait for a “good” time to take vacation, it never seems to come. You just have to schedule it, and too many of us don’t (For more on this, see my “vacation quandary” post from August 31, 2006).
Then there are the people like me who struggle not to work during vacation. Once again, as my vacation approaches, I’m consciously vowing to limit the amount of work I am going to do. The fact that we are traveling to a pretty remote island location that has “spotty” email and mobile reception may help my cause. But in the end, will I bring work-related reading to “catch-up on” or finally pick up the novel that’s been gathering dust on my nightstand? Unfortunately, a law won’t help me choose the novel. Only I can make that decision.
Don’t get me wrong, I think a paid vacation law would be a great start. But I reach the same conclusion each year I revisit the vacation quandary. In many cases, we are our own worst enemy. Even with a law, we will still have to figure out how to take the vacation we are allocated. And, when we are on that vacation, it’s up to us to resist the urge to work.
I’ll let you know how I manage my vacation when I return, but I’d like to hear from you. How to you deal with the vacation quandary? Any tips or strategies you’d like to share?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
July 2, 2008
10:34 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
In the past few weeks, I’ve heard a lot about aging and ageism in the workplace. But it took reading some comments on an article I found to doing research on the candidates in Politico.com entitled, “John McCain doesn’t work weekends,” to realize how pervasive the problem is. If left unchecked, this ageism will keep companies from using flexibility to strategically retain valuable, older employees as they approach what used to be “retirement.”
According to Politico, since winning the nomination, John McCain’s advisors had made “the conscious decision…to use weekends to return their candidate to her preferred surroundings in Arizona and to have him rest, bone up on policy, and meet privately with aides, advisers, contributors and other prominent officials.” In other words, John McCain had readjusted his work+life fit when his realities changed.
I thought this was a great example of work+life fit in action. But then I started reading the comments people posted on the site about the article. I was surprised to see how many of the comments attributed McCain’s decision to his age and his inability to keep up with the pace of a presidential campaign. It seemed funny to me, since it had never crossed my mind that his age was the reason for adjusting his fit. Maybe that’s because I am 43 years old, and quite frankly I don’t know how any of them survive campaigning regardless of their age. But obviously the issue of age immediately crossed the minds of a lot of other people. Perhaps you can attribute some of the commentary purely to politics, but the fact remains that it was out there.
So, what do we do and why does it matter? Just as a number of organizations have worked hard to prove that moms who leave the workforce are a valuable untapped resource (Center for Work Life Policy, iRelaunch, Womenatwork), older workers need advocates and voices to challenge outdated stereotypes and highlight that they are also a valuable, yet too-often overlooked, resource.
And the good news is that the conversation is gaining traction. Blogs like Time Goes By, write honestly about the reality and impact of “workplace age ambivalence.” Recent studies, such as the MetLife Foundation’s 2008 Encore Career Survey, are reaffirming that 50% of respondents ages 44 to 70 years old want what they call, “encore careers,” or second careers that combine money, meaning, and social impact.
The Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College just received a second major $3.5 million grant from the Sloan Foundation, which is evidence of its commitment to the issue. The “cornerstone” of the Center is employer-engaged research in which employers are, “provided opportunities to accelerate their understanding of workplace responses to the changing age demographics of the workforce…(and) receive information about new and innovative practices as experiences unfold and findings emerge.”
The Center has an important study on Age & Generations coming out in the Fall, “which surveyed over 1,900 employees from 12 different worksites across the country, (and) suggests that there can be differences between employees' ages/generations and their life-stages or career-stages. For example, some employees in their early 60s still think of themselves as mid-career (not late career as might be expected), as do some in their early 20s. Furthermore, when we look at a single generation, such as Baby Boomers, some of the employees say they are early career, others mid-career, and yet others late-career.” Another example of how the neat little boxes we’ve constructed to understand “work” and “life” no longer apply..
Finally, we must face the reality that there are some real structural challenges to be addressed in order for meaningful change to occur. You may have read about these changes in the recent New York Times article, “For a Good Retirement, Find Work. Good Luck.” In addition to reiterating the stark, age-related stereotypes that boomers are experiencing, the article outlines the policy changes that must occur. It suggests, for example, creating a category of “paid up” worker. After 40 years the worker’s employer no longer has to contribute to Social Security or Medicare, “making Medicare the primary payer of health care costs for people over 65, whether they are working or not.”
If my experience inside companies is any indication, some of the most innovative work and life thinkers are over 55 years old. It isn’t age, it’s mindset. Stereotypes about mothers who leave the workforce have kept a valuable resource untapped for too long. And unless we start actively challenging outdated stereotypes about getting older, I’m afraid ageism will do the same. What do you think?
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
