As for her success, of course she has to be smart tenacious innovative and hard working to become a CEO. But I also think its fair to acknowledge that a lot of the time that isn't enough when you are a woman. I'm simply pointing out that she probably had to sacrifice some things in her life that men don't typically consider or feel pressured to consider to the extent women do. I think the maternity leave thing demonstrates that. And thats fine if thats what she wants to do, but you know...maybe her career path has given her a perspective on the life work balance issue that lots of people just don't share. I could see in her position that it would seem pretty clear that if you want to be successful, you should just have to give those things up. And if thats the case, then work/life balance isn't going to be important to her and she won't see the value in helping her employees with it either.
Not a world changer, thats an exaggeration. But I think a lot of women have a desire to see a woman who actually has some hefty influence help further women's success. People would like to think, if anything could help a disadvantage group...it would be getting more of those in that group in influential places. Would you not think that? So when you see an opportunity of that nature and feel like its actually the opposite thats happening...why should people not talk about it? Its discouraging, i think people are allowed to feel discouraged.She is also held to a standard of being some world changer.
Maybe you feel its faux, but i certainly don't. I see work life balance as an issue that affects me, i see the disadvantages that face women in the workplace as an issue that affects me...and i see this decision affecting both of those things, therefore its important to me. I'm a working woman, and the larger bread winner in my dual income family. Should other groups that face obstacles only raise their voices when they are the ones being directly affected? I don't think so.Personally I think that all the faux outrage and meaning seeking in this is more than a little silly, unless of course one works for Yahoo or is personally affected by this.
I actually find it frustrating to think that someone wouldn't think this is disappointing simply because they aren't the ones directly affected.
I just deeply disagree with you that this is a decision which impacts women more than men and I disagree with you- you clearly ARE holding her to a different standard because of her gender.
And fine if you want to get technical, i'm holding her to a different standard in that it does disappoint me more. But the main thing...whether i view it as a good decision or a bad decision would be the same whether she had a vagina or not.
Because I view a family as a whole, because I don't think that mothers are more responsible for their children than fathers are, and because the argument tha women like to telecommute because they get more time with their children is equally true of men. And frankly I don't think that a CEO trying to turn her company around is focused on letting her employees "have it all" like attending that soccer game or driving kids around during the work day. She is saying that we as a company need to refocus on our company- based on internal statistics that show weakness in the telecommuting arena- and it's her right to do so.
My argument is NOT that women like it more than men or enjoy spending time with their kids more than men. My argument is that women are still pressured more than men to make work and career sacrifices for their family.and because the argument that women like to telecommute because they get more time with their children is equally true of men.
I think employee satisfaction should always be a consideration because it benefits your company. And like I said, if the choices are "No telecommuting or go bankrupt" then obviously there is only one choice. I'm saying I believe there were more choices than that. You can overhaul your telecommuting policies without removing them completely.And frankly I don't think that a CEO trying to turn her company around is focused on letting her employees "have it all" like attending that soccer game or driving kids around during the work day. She is saying that we as a company need to refocus on our company- based on internal statistics that show weakness in the telecommuting arena- and it's her right to do so.
-as to the last bit- perhaps this is a temporary thing. Perhaps it's not. I do agree that employee satisfaction and feeling valued are not only important, but integral. I also don't discount the validity of short term discomfort or change for long term success. I've never argued that this is for sure a great thing- I've acknowledged that its a risk and that they may lose talent. I also believe that is may make a positive change to their company.
Last edited by Potter75; 03-04-2013 at 04:59 PM.
So, it recently came out that she built a nursery off of her office for her new baby..something that I'm sure the other employees do not have access to. How do you reconcile that with telling people who took a flex telecommuting job that you have to come in the office?
Melis~I know what Kim is saying. My husband and I are 50/50 most of the time. He is home with the girls, on his own, 2 days a week and has been since I returned from maternity leave with Elizabeth. For me, the expectation is from outsiders or society if you will. Her school, our parents etc. because that was the norm for most people. Mom comes to pick them up when sick, mom comes to the school for activities (she had a school thing yesterday....no dads just moms). I don't get heck at work if I have to take a day to stay home with a sick kid but he'll hear it at his office. Is it fair..nope. Is it stupid...yep but it's still there. I do believe it is changing but we're not there yet. I think she has too many perks as the CEO to fully understand what she is making people give up.