One of the failures of feminism has been our inability to change the culture of most workplaces. At all levels but especially at the top, the holders of power still believe the following myths:
- Longer hours are more productive than shorter ones
- If you can’t do long hours, you are not serious about your job
- Being there is proof of competence.
The survival of this culture is the basis for Carolyn Hewson’s comments on the need for nannies to allow women to rise to the top of the corporate ladder. This seems to me to defeat the feminist idea of change. Replacing the older form of corporate wife support by paid servants to ensure women can also do top jobs is not what we wanted. Feminism wanted to redesign working hours so all could participate meaningfully. Instead, the time demands of workplaces on male and female workers have dramatically increased over the past few decades, with Australia having very long hours. This change is despite increasing the numbers of women in the paid workforce and even in senior ranks.
The continued lack of women on boards and in the most senior ranks of the private sector shows that the macho cultures of the upper echelons excludes anyone with a serious life outside the workplace. Women without children, with stay-at-home partners or with surrogate carers, are over-represented among those who make it to the top.
Even when women make it up there, they tend to have to deny their possible feminism by not changing the cultures. They conform to what is there. Some try to mentor other women to fit into the square holes that were designed for men with family support. The few men who want time with their children mostly find themselves out of the picture as well. Yet there is no evidence that this model of longer hours and presentism is really productive or that those who rise to the top have the best available talents and experiences. It limits the field of potential candidates to those who are available for long hours and who have limited personal responsibilities.
It is therefore not surprising that the quality of management is not as good as it could be, with constant examples of problem senior managers and board failures. Some of the critiques of the lack of women on boards, such as the Citi group’s analysis of the ASX standards states:
“As new principles and recommendations on diversity came into effect on January 1, 2011, this is likely to lead to increasing focus on the approach companies take to address various diversity issues, including women’s representation on company boards. Board diversity may enhance effectiveness, by providing a wider range of perspectives and knowledge.”
The introduction of a new book on boards, states the figures and the problem:
“Board appointments must always be made on merit, with the best suited person being selected. Nevertheless, it is concerning that in Australia women comprise: 50.2% of the population, nearly 50% of the workforce, 56% of all higher education students, 55% of all university graduates and yet only comprise 4% of line managers, 8% of senior executives and 12.5% of directors of Australia’s top 200 companies. This has raised questions as to whether companies and boards are in practice recruiting for these roles based solely on skills, experience and performance, without a gender bias.”
Few question whether the current management models may be flawed and if we need changes to the assumptions behind the time and attendance demands in workplaces. Despite possibilities for part-time and flexible work at lower levels, it rarely emerges at the top. It is therefore not surprising that Carolyn Hewson suggests that women who want to succeed must ape the behavioural patters of men who have little or no life outside the office.
The problem with the Hewson model is a) it doesn’t question the workplace cultures and b) it suggests that some women succeed at the top by exploiting others in low-paid jobs. Comments posted on site of the article pointed out the slave-like conditions of many overseas nannies and the higher but often inadequate pay locally.
One complained about male roles:
“Men have to work because there is no support for them to look after children and stay home. Go to any kindergarten or primary school and see how many men are around. If Ms Hewson and people like her were really serious about getting women to stay at work (and hence get to board level), then rather than blaming men or a lack of nanny culture then they would spend more of their time and resource on supporting men to be able to with their children. How many members of the boards of the companies that Ms Hewson is on, have taken time off to spend with their children?”
Despite his angry tone, the writer is saying something important. We need to change the cultures of workplaces so we can all be good parents, relations, friends, citizens and good workers. Then those at the top could really be selected on merit, rather than on limited experience and availability.
Excellent article – I’m sick of the “bums on seats” mentality and presentism – there’s no place for it in the modern, connected workplace. Hopefully when the crusty old boys retire we’ll get a better system with better management.
I also want to know when we can move to the 4-day work week.
Ditto kuke – excellent article. Legislation, quotas, the notion of equal pay can all chip away but the fundamental culture of the workplace is still a major problem.
What about working from home, and having child care centres on the same premises as work places? Time off for feeding babies etc would be much better than just time out to express milk? We also need to change our attitudes to breast feeding in public, and yes, the NEED and right of fathers to also be involved in nurturing their kids. I’m sure if many different avenues became available, people would feel more confident to pursue their careers – that’s male and female workers.
Sometimes I listen to older women who have the idea, ‘that if we had to do it tough, it should remain so’? I’m the opposite and I know that Eva is too. I’m a champion for improvement for all concerned. Our society would benefit enormously.’
Listening to Ged Kearney, President ACTU at the National Press Club the other day, the reality is difficult for workers at present – we need more family orientated workplaces that care or cater for a holistic view of workers and work places. At the moment, workers are working too hard too long and are wearing out, while some at the top are blaming all ills on them. The Census undertaken by the ACTU was most informative. It’s not going to take that much to change the status quo – but as Eva has said we need to change the cultures of workplaces!
Eva Cox is spot on.
Given the institutional conservatism and fearful inertia in this country, I think the only alternative is for individual work places to take it on themselves to change to a more family life supportive environment. Typically, that takes a few people (and it’s usually fathers with a couple of young kids) to see the light and just do it. One can only hope that in 10 or 20 years it’ll be commonplace (and, no doubt, 10-20 years ago folks said the same thing). I think it could be an unintentional but welcome effect of men having kids later in life than they used to, when they are in a position to change workplaces.
I’m currently employed in an organisation which has reasonable gender balance on its board and its senior executive staff. Selection is on the basis of merit and capacity and gender is not an issue. If women want equality they have to earn it not have it handed to them on a platter through some regulatory control.
Through my working career I have seen many women exploit the workplace situation of preferential treatment for nursing mothers, women working from home etc and the consequential impact on the rest of the workforce including other women to to cover the gaps when they are away from the workplace.
One should not lose sight of the fact that enterprises involving cooperative effort (outside the public sector) survive on the generation of economic outputs traded in markets. For every worker absent from the workplace either breastfeeding, or working from home, there is an economic cost unless the activity is one that does not involve interactive activity with other workers customers and clients.
The public sector can create “family friendly workplaces” because of its ability to fund these activities from tax revenues rather than market traded goods. Dewy eyed idealism often founders on economic reality. There are substantial sections of the workforce where absence from the workplace is just not an option such as construction workers, truck drivers nurses and teachers, so there are limited opportunities for the sort of workplace reforms that are being assumed.
If women want to succeed in the workplace they have to work on equal terms, and maintain economic output, and I have seen women work effectively and successfully, making the same sacrifices in terms of family time that men have had to make.
Unfortunately you can’t have your cake and eat it too. There are economic limits, to shifting the burden of workplace responsibility to other workers while while individuals pursue their ownown personal goals with consequential reduced output, and there are economic limits to the restructuring available in the workplace without sacrificing output and therefore increasing cost.