Learning how to roll with it

I had one of my worst interviews ever a while back, which also turned out to be one of the most important in my study on men opting out.

A friend of mine put me in touch with a man who opted out of a career to become a chiropractor. He had graciously agreed to participate in my study and the next step was for me to contact him in order to set up an interview. Well, that sounds easy enough, but this guy turned out to be very busy and getting a hold of him was extremely difficult. Finally after what was literally months, he suggested a time to meet. Fantastic! The timing wasn’t optimal for me but no problem; with some minor rearranging in my schedule I made it work.

So we had a time, so far so good! However, he didn’t want to meet in any of the places I suggested (interviews are good to conduct in quiet and private places so that the interviewee can speak openly and freely without worrying about anyone else hearing), he wanted to meet in a shopping mall that was on the way for him between appointments. At this point I thought I need to take whatever I can get and agreed.

The next day I drove to said shopping mall to see if there was a café with any remotely private corners or nooks where we could conduct the interview and I found one which actually didn’t seem so bad. I was very pleased; finally this was going to happen! He said he only had an hour, but being the seasoned interviewer that I am, this didn’t worry me. An hour is fine; much data can be collected in 60 minutes.

Well, the day finally came and I set off to the shopping mall about 30 minutes ahead of schedule to be sure to get a quiet table. I get there, I order coffee, and I sit down at the table right at the back of the café. It was private, it was quiet, and there really weren’t that many people there either. This seemed like it was going to work out after all.

About 15 minutes into my coffee, the café starts to fill up (who knew this café was so popular?!) and music starts playing, pretty loudly I might add. The minutes pass and I look at my watch. It’s time. He should be here. I realize I have no idea what this man looks like but right then a man walks in. I stand up and he walks over to the table next to mine where someone is waiting for him. False alarm. I sit down and wait. It’s five past by now and my phone rings. It’s him. He says he’ll be there in 10 minutes. Argh, that will only leave us with 45 minutes for the interview, but okay that’s fine, it’s better than nothing.

About 17 minutes later a man comes in, he’s looking around, I think that must be him so I get up and say his name. Bingo! He’s here! But right then I see he has a kid in tow. I really like children, don’t get me wrong, but as interviews tend to be private – which is what you kind of hope for as a researcher – bringing someone along is usually not a good idea. I sigh quietly to myself but smile. It’s okay, I’m not letting this faze me; he’s finally here. The kid is hungry and needs something to eat, they go to the counter and there is nothing he wants. He finally settles for a soft drink, the dad has some coffee, and 25 past the hour they’re finally making their way to my table. We now have 35 minutes left of the interview.

No problem, we can do this, 35 minutes is better than nothing. The music is still playing loudly, but whatever, my dictaphone has a really good mike. We start the interview and I realize that this man, ironically, has the softest voice of anyone I have ever met. I realize I can hardly hear a word he’s saying. I pray that the mike is picking up his voice anyway and I start reading lips like crazy.

The good news is that the café and the kid don’t seem to bother him at all. He’s very open when he talks about his experiences, but still I feel a bit disappointed. His story doesn’t seem to fit my understanding of opting out. Maybe there was something he wasn’t telling me? Maybe the café setting was a mistake after all, or maybe my lip-reading skills just weren’t up to par.

All this was going through my head when he suddenly said something important. This man practises aikido in his free time. He explains to me how in aikido you can’t resist whatever is coming at you, you have to accept it, and use that force to your advantage. You have to acknowledge and embrace it and use it for your next move. In other words, you just have to roll with it. He explained how this is a philosophy he adheres to in his practice as a chiropractor but also in life.

Wow. It triggers the most amazing light bulb moment in me. I’m not exactly new to research, but all of a sudden I realize I had been making the mistake that so many people make, but that you have to be really careful not to when doing research. Instead of really listening, I had been confirming what I already knew and trying to fit my male interviewees into the model I developed for my research on women opting out. After all, I am the expert on opting out. The thing is, although some of the men seem to fit into my model, all of them don’t, and at the time I wasn’t really exploring that possibility. I was just trying to confirm what I already knew.

No more. I still haven’t listened to the recording of that particular interview so I’m not sure if my dictaphone actually picked up any of what he said. But regardless of that, this was probably the most important interview I’ve had so far during this research project, and I am so grateful that this man took the time to teach me the importance of acceptance.

This goes for any situation in life, whether personal or professional. You may think you know what a person is saying or what he or she needs; you may think you know the best way forward. But if you don’t listen you may be totally off and things will, most likely, just backfire. If you stubbornly stick to your own agenda, you’re not going o get very far, or at least you’re not going to get there in the smoothest nor most productive of fashions.

They really are very wise, those people who practise aikido. We could all learn from them.

It can’t be done… or can it?

One of the things I often hear when talking about sustainable career models is that in a family with children the parents cannot both have high-powered careers: if one parent pursues a career with everything that entails, then the other can’t or else no one will ever be around to raise the children. In most heterosexual families it’s the man with the career and the woman doing most of the childcare, but I have also seen families where the gender roles have been completely reversed. Instead of sharing responsibilities more evenly they have just flipped roles and the mother has the career and the father is the main caregiver of their children.

To reach the top echelons of corporate hierarchies, there is an expectation to climb the so-called career ladder in a timely fashion. Longer breaks or leaves of absence are often considered suspect. Only a few days ago this was confirmed to me once again by a corporate executive. I was told if a job applicant’s CV has gaps, or if the applicant hasn’t advanced as quickly as expected, he questions the person’s ability, ambition, and drive.

Yes, I know. Just because you choose to do something else for a while certainly doesn’t mean you aren’t able, ambitious, or driven, but that is how many still see it. And no, I don’t think that is the way it should be, and I am working on changing it, but for now that’s what we’re dealing with.

But let me tell you this. In my research, every once in a while, I see an exception to this rule. I interviewed a woman once who decided to just step off the career ladder. She was in a management position, she was exhausted, and she realized that unintentionally often took it out on her child, which she was distraught by. She decided she just couldn’t do it anymore, so after months of agonizing about what she should do, she walked into her boss’s office to hand in her resignation. As it turned out, she didn’t end up quitting. She managed to keep her job but started working part-time instead. No one in a management position had ever worked part-time in that company before, it was absolutely unheard of, and her decision was what we would generally define as a career-limiting move. She stopped caring about promotions, she was just happy that she could still work and be less stressed as a mother. Well, get this. When I met her two years later to follow up on the interview, she had been offered and had accepted a promotion in that very same company. The career limiting move turned out not to be. Yes, she was stressed again, and yes, she stepped back on the career ladder, but if you think about it, it is quite extraordinary as she originally thought her decisions would be anything but good for her career.

Then there was this man I interviewed. He had had several gaps during his career, when he had taken time off work to stay at home with all three of his kids while his wife pursued a successful career. In the interview he talks about how he and his wife thought about what the best solution for the family was, and they came to the conclusion that she should work and he should take care of the kids. His story isn’t very usual, but it’s inspirational because it also proves that interlacing a career with other things does not have to mean kissing a corporate career goodbye. He never disengaged completely; he always kept in touch with his contacts and did some consultancy work while he was away, but definitely didn’t climb the ladder in the expected way. He and his wife had decided to take turns. First she would focus or her career, and then a few years later when the kids were a bit bigger and she had achieved many of her goals, he would focus on his. And because he was never completely away he managed to do this and is now in a top corporate position pursuing the career he originally thought he would have.

His choices haven’t been completely unproblematic. Being away makes his ascent slightly slower than his peers’, but it is still possible. And if we make alternative career models the new normal it might also become possible for even more people.

But in the meantime, consider what these two stories tell us. They illustrate that what we think of as unheard of doesn’t necessarily have to be. You may think it isn’t possible where you work, but how will you know if you don’t ask? Sometimes it really can be that simple.

 

Flexibility is the future, so what are we waiting for?

I read an article in the New York Times the other day, about how job flexibility is the answer to closing the gender gap. This was great for two reasons. The first reason is of course the fact that articles like this prove that there at least seems to be some interest in closing the gender gap. The other reason is that it makes me very pleased that people more and more seem to talk about – and argue for – increased flexibility in the work place. Flexibility makes it possible for people to have a life not just a job, and it provides them with a sense of coherence and control, which is essential for their sense of well-being. And this is exactly what the article argued: how people want and need to have more control over their time.

The problem, however, is that this need for flexibility is seen mostly as a women’s issue, and this article was also mostly about women. The argument was that if women had more flexibility they could better combine work with children, which, in turn, would mean that they could compete for the top jobs they previously may only have dreamed of.

But here’s the catch. If it is only women who are considered to need flexibility and if only they are provided with this possibility, they will continue to be seen as deviants, people who for whatever reason don’t live up to corporate expectations. As a result, most of them will most probably not be able to compete for those top jobs after all. Because let’s face it, there are still a lot of companies who do not offer flexible solutions, not to women and especially not to men. A real man will just do the job, right?

No, that’s not right, but that’s the norm. However, the article did also mention that 48% of fathers rate flexible work schedules as extremely important. That’s right, that’s almost half. Despite popular belief there are many fathers who want to be able to be with their children more, and many of them have wives or partners who expect no less. So you see the problem here. Many men value flexibility, but as long as we only speak of it as something women need, it will not be offered to men, at least not readily. And as long as we continue to create solutions only for women so that they can combine a career with children, we continue to set them apart from men – they will continue to be seen as an exception – and men will continue to work the long hours that do not really make it very easy for them to be more present in their children’s lives. And as long as we do that, the gender gap will certainly not be closed.

But we’re in the 21st century. We need to break out of a mold that was created decades ago in a time long past. Creating more possibilities for flexibility, for combining work with other areas of life (because you know what they say about all work and no play), and making it possible for people to create their own individual solutions for how they can do that, is something we need to make available to everyone – men and women. If we do that, we create the possibility for men to be more involved in their children’s lives without the risk of seeming unmanly or not serious about their jobs. Like Anne-Marie Slaughter says, it is only if men also start doing more non-paid care work, will we stop devaluing it so much, and only then will the amount of men and women doing different kinds of work in the public and private spheres be more balanced.

A few months ago I participated in a seminar where a representative of DNA, a Finnish telecommunications company, presented their new HR solutions. They had turned conventional rules regarding time and place of work upside down. They had given their employees complete freedom in deciding where they wanted to work. They did not have to come in to the office at all if they didn’t want to.

This is quite unusual because many people I’ve talked to in the business world say that this is something you just cannot do. You can’t give employees complete freedom when it comes to where they work, because then no one would ever come in to the office. But this is not what happened in the case of DNA. You see, most people, despite not being forced to, really do want to come in to the office to work several days a week. Some might appreciate keeping work separate from their private life, some want to come in to meet colleagues, and then there are things like meetings that tend to gather people anyway. It is just that most people really appreciate the ability to choose, to have the option to spend some of their time working offsite, wherever that may be, when they want or need to.

This new arrangement naturally meant that the managers of DNA also needed to develop new management routines. After all, if all your employees aren’t physically in front of you at all times, you need to adjust to that. And they had the technology, but more importantly they had the will.

Another argument I often hear from companies is that if you have people working offsite, how do you know that they are actually working? Well, to be honest, how do you know that they are working when they are in the office? Just because they are there physically does not mean that they are working. Besides, I once heard someone say, if you can’t trust them, why did you hire them in the first place?

The ironic thing is that what seems to be a giant leap of faith for organizations, doesn’t necessarily mean that dramatic a change in practice, as most people will continue to come in to work regularly anyway. Although it will mean some new routines, the main difference is that this freedom provides employees with a sense of control, and a possibility of combining their work with the other areas of life that people invariable have, whether their employers like it or not.

Research has shown this is what a lot of people want, and that it is especially true for Millennials. Flexibility and individual solutions are the future, people. So come on, what are we waiting for?

Changing the world one blog post at a time

I have been asked a lot lately about crisis as a catalyst for change. In my research on opting out, this is something I have seen across the board. Everyone I have interviewed or talked to who has opted out and adopted a new lifestyle has experienced some sort of crisis that pushed them to make a change. It could be anything from an identity crisis or something at work that went against their values, to sickness or even a death in the family. The nature of the crisis varies, but all of them experienced something that made them realize that they just couldn’t go on the way they had; something that provided them with a sense of urgency.

As I talk about this idea of crisis as a catalyst for change, a question I sometimes get is, if people experience a crisis that pushes them to opt out, is their lifestyle change really an active choice or did they have no choice but to opt out? Well, choice is complicated and there are always both push and pull factors. Just because one is pushed to make a choice, or a choice is made from a number of less that optimal alternatives, it doesn’t mean it isn’t a choice.

What we’re looking at is actually just the nature of change. Whether we’re talking about individual lives or implementing change on an organizational level, a sense of urgency is what is needed. Change can be daunting. Stepping out of one’s comfort zone and into the unknown is uncomfortable, which is why people don’t usually change their behavior until they’ve had that light bulb moment that provides them with the sense that something just has to be done, now.

This is what my colleagues and I used to do when I worked as a consultant. We would help our clients implement organizational change by providing everyone in the organization with the opportunity to have a light bulb moment of their own, and it worked like a charm. Only after having this light bulb moment, did they also feel that sense of urgency and understand that change is necessary. And only if they changed their own behavior was change on an organizational level possible, because an organization is made up of its employees and their actions.

So the fact that people who opt out experience a crisis before making a lifestyle change is only natural. It provides them with the sense of urgency. But opting out and adopting a new lifestyle can be quite a radical. Changes can also be made on a smaller scale, and sometimes it is only a small change that is needed in order to greatly improve one’s sense of wellbeing.

This is what a good friend of mine did a while ago. Those of you who regularly read my blog will know just how much I love working from home. I often write about the advantages of having real flexibility and more control over when, where, and how you work. However, my friend is employed by an organization where working offsite is unheard of, and she often mentions how she wishes she could too. Well, get this. One day she decided she would ask anyway if she could work from home for one day, and grudgingly she was given permission. It just made me so happy. It made me feel that my research is really making a difference. Maybe, just maybe, my friend is the start of something new in that particular organization. Maybe more of her colleagues will now start asking for more flexibility and maybe it will even lead to changes in company policy. Who knows?

But one thing I do know is that if you want to do something differently at work, the first step is to ask. If you never ask, the answer will always be no. And asking may just make all the difference.

Do what inspires you

I started working on my second book yesterday. Last week I had been thinking about what the main areas of research are for my current research project on men opting out and I realized, as I jotted down a list of bullet points, that it kind of looked like a possible table of contents.

Well I’ve been mulling this over for a few days now and yesterday morning I just felt super inspired. All of a sudden I just knew what my first sentence was going to be. I could barely wait until I got back from driving my kids to school and I needed to write it down before I forgot it. I threw my jacket on the extra chair in my office and I barely had time to sit down at my desk before I started writing.

After my first sentence I hesitated for a second. I haven’t even published my first book yet; I’m still checking the proofs before it can go to print. I’m also working on a paper and a book chapter, both of which have deadlines within the next week or so. I have other papers that need to be written once I have submitted these and I have a bunch of theses to read through and evaluate… And what do I do? I start working on the one thing that I don’t have to get done any time soon. Writing a book based on my men opting out research is in my research plan, but the project doesn’t end until 2019.

But still, this is what I started working on. Because right then, in that instant, I felt inspired and I knew exactly how I wanted to start my book. I knew what story I wanted to tell. So I sat down and produced the first two pages in about half an hour.

When I think about it, this is what I usually do. Despite looming deadlines and long to do lists, if I feel inspired to do something else work-related (especially if it involves writing, because no matter what, I always have things to write), I just put everything else on hold and do that (unless of course it’s a matter of life and death or a student graduating or something because then I will put my inspiration on hold and just get on with it). Because doing what inspires me and really having flow feels so great and gives me so much energy that the inspiration and energy I get from that spills over on to everything else I have to do.

And needless to say, yesterday was one of the most productive days I have had in a long time. I was, and continue to be, so excited about this new book that everything I did yesterday, I did with focus and drive. And it all felt more fun, more meaningful and just easier.

Note to self: when in doubt, do whatever inspires you the most.

The ideal worker – a remnant of the past (or at least it should be)

As you may recall, I signed a contract with a publisher a few months ago to write a book on opting out. Well, the deadline to submit my manuscript is approaching and you will be pleased to know that I am currently working on my final chapter, the epilogue! In other words my manuscript is almost finished and ready to go!

Although I love writing (most of the time) and the thought of working on a book still feels like a dream, I will be so relieved when I have finally sent it all off to my editor. I’ve felt like this book project has been hanging over me, because I haven’t been able to work on the book as much as I would have liked to since I signed. The main reason being I was pretty bogged down with teaching during the winter without much headspace for anything else. But my employer has been gracious enough to allow me to concentrate almost solely on the book since the end of April, and all I can say is hooray for understanding employers!

One observation I have made about myself during this process is especially interesting. The thing is, writing is quite different from many other forms of work. I cannot put in a full eight hours, or however long your workday is, writing and producing new text. If I get up in the morning, go to my office, and just sit down at my computer with the intention of putting words down on paper – or rather in a Word document – it would never work. I wouldn’t know what to write, no ideas would come to me, and there would be no book. In order to have something to say, I need to think about what I have read, I need to think about my research, I need to think about what my take on things is… In short, I need time to reflect. And that is not something I can do at my computer. I cannot get up in the morning, go to the office, sit down at my desk and reflect in order to then write down my reflections and turn them into a book. That’s not how it happens.

I need unstructured time where I let my mind wander, where I allow myself space for unstructured and unplanned thinking. It may be in the shower, it may be when I’m jogging, or it may be when I’m vacuuming (Okay no. That never happens, I just don’t vacuum, my husband does. It was just an example). This unstructured time creates space for creativity and if I allow myself this time, ideas come to me and then I can sit down at my computer and just write it all down. And presto, in short creative burst like this a book is born.

However that was not the interesting or surprising observation I was referring to earlier. What has me completely confounded is that although I know this, and although giving myself time and space to reflect is really the most effective and efficient way for me to write a book, my work ethic and my sort of warped idea of what efficient work looks like, makes me feel kind of guilty about not working all the time. Let me run this by you again: I have been taught that the ideal worker goes to the office and works for whatever amount of hours is specified in the contract plus a few more in order to be considered a good and committed worker, regardless of the nature of the work the person is doing. So I of all people, who research working cultures, cultural conditioning, and new meanings of work; who has all these thoughts on how we need to change work in order to bring working culture into the 21st century; and who knows just how important this is for so many reasons not least of which is our wellbeing; I of all people have trouble with alternative forms of work because also I have been conditioned to believe that there is only one right way of working.

So if it is difficult for me, how difficult isn’t it going to be for people who haven’t been researching this for the past seven or so years?

That is a scary thought. But at least I guess I know what I’m up against. And now more than ever I clearly see just how much we need to redefine work as we know it. Times are a changing and our employers need to keep up!

My definition of success

Have you noticed how when you meet new people, the first thing they tend to ask is “What do you do?” I remember a woman I interviewed once who was very frustrated by this. She had opted out but not yet figured out what she was going to do next, and in the meantime she was temporarily at home with her kids. This question frustrated her so much because she couldn’t identify with being a stay-at-home mom, she felt an acute loss of identity and extremely self-conscious about not living up to expectations. ‘Just’ being a stay-at-home mom didn’t feel important enough.

Well, the fact that we don’t really value nonpaid care work is very problematic. I mean, anyone who has been at home with children knows that being a stay-at-home mom is definitely not doing nothing, even though those posing the question aren’t just wondering what you do, but what you get paid to do outside the home. But that aside, I have to say that in a way I really get why there’s an interest in what it is you spend most of your time doing, because aren’t we sort what we do? And now I don’t mean professionally, I mean in general. Without activities and actions, what would our lives really consist of?

Inspired by last week’s post, I’ve been thinking about what exactly it is that makes my life successful. First I thought about my work. I’ve managed to negotiate a pretty good deal for myself at work and in a way I guess that should make me feel successful. But to tell you the truth when I really think about it, having a deal that reflects my worth is actually more of a hygiene factor than anything else. If you come from the business world, you’ve probably heard of Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation. There are hygiene factors like working conditions, a salary, and job security, and then there are motivators, which include recognition, a sense of achievement, and personal growth. You feel dissatisfied if your hygiene factors aren’t fulfilled, and if they are fulfilled you just feel neutral – neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. It is only if your motivators are fulfilled that you actually feel satisfaction.

And although I should feel pretty satisfied about getting a good deal, especially considering that women are generally underpaid and as research has shown not as good at negotiating or knowing their worth as men, getting what I deserve is really just a hygiene factor. Anything less would simply be unsatisfactory. What motivates me and makes my life and work a success is something completely different.

As clichéd as it sounds, I came to the conclusion that it is all the things I do and the people I have in my life that bring me joy that make my life feel meaningful and successful. I love that I can make a living reading and writing about things that interest me and that I feel are important. I have so many wonderful meaningful relationships with people close to me and I love that I have the time and flexibility to nurture these relationships, not to mention all the laughter and good conversation! I have produced two of the most delightful human beings I know and watching them grow is definitely one of my favorite things. Also, having a good relationship with them feels like a huge success. I love that I have the peace of mind to slow down enough every now and then to see all the fantastic beauty around me – that is just good for the soul. And I am able to have the most satisfying hobby that challenges me while also allowing me to cuddle with half a ton worth of furry creature (horse-back riding).

Notice how all of these things are activities? It is the things I do and the people I’m actively with which make my life meaningful, and yes also successful. None of the things I’ve listed are about money or prestige. Don’t get me wrong, money is important, we need money to live and to eat, and it is important to get that raise when you deserve it. But for me at least, these are just hygiene factors. It is rather the things that bring me joy that make my life successful.

Exciting news!

I received exciting news last week. I’ve been applying for funding for my research on men opting out and on the new meanings of work, and finally funding has been granted! Not only that, I got the mother of all funding: three years full-time funding from the Academy of Finland, which in Finland is a really big deal. In fact, it’s only just starting to sink in.

To be able to focus full-time on research is a dream for any academic, and for me it’s especially amazing since this is what I’ve been planning ever since I started working on my PhD several years ago. I want to research opting out as a societal phenomenon, not just a women’s phenomenon, I want to be the first (as far as I know) to include men in the discussion on opting out, and I want to be involved in uncovering and creating new definitions and solutions for work. This is the future and it’s happening now!

I think one of the things that worked in my favor in this round of applications was that I have already started this research. I was frustrated last year when I couldn’t seem to convince funders of the importance of this topic, so I decided to start interviewing men on their opting out experiences anyway without funding because I knew this is what I wanted to do. As a result I’ve already conducted about 10 pilot interviews and could share preliminary impressions and results in my application.

So if there is one learning to take away from this, it is that if there is something you really want to do, don’t wait for permission, just do it!

I’m going to miss teaching though, I was just getting into it and I really liked it. But you win some and you lose some, and in this case the win is pretty amazing. Post-doc research project, here I come!

Oh right, and I also need more men to interview. So if you are a man who has opted out to adopt a new lifestyle or way of working, or if you know of someone who is and who would be willing to be interviewed, please contact me: theoptingoutblog@gmail.com

All emails are confidential and will be treated as such.

Sleep your way to the top

Now this week’s title must have made you a least a little curious. I have to admit, thinking up catchy titles for my posts – titles that will actually make people curious enough to click through to my blog – isn’t always my strong suit. So I’m especially pleased with this one. Although before you get too excited I have to confess that this blog post is not about sex. It’s about sleep, among other things.

I saw a video clip of Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In interview with Arianna Huffington the other day, and ‘sleep your way to the top’ are Huffington’s words. According to Huffington we all sleep too little due to the constant pressure and need to be efficient. However, and the experts all agree on this, a lack sleep does not lead to efficiency. Sacrificing sleep in the name of productivity actually makes us less productive. So if you really want to succeed – if you want to make it to the top – you really need to get enough sleep.

Another thing Huffington brings up is that organizational culture is designed by men and fueled by burnout. Well, I’m very familiar with the concept of masculinist career models and working cultures. It’s true, prevalent career models have been designed by men for men. Whether they represent how all men want to work is a different question, but this is fact. However the idea that it is fueled by burnout was a new thought for me, and a very disturbing one at that. I know working culture can be extreme, and I know that in this day and age the ever more hectic pace and financial uncertainty take their toll. In fact according to the Kelly Global Workforce Index about half (!) of the world’s workforce is reportedly unhappy, mainly due to downsizing and uncertainty, and according to the Harvard Business Review middle managers are among the most unhappy. So I guess it should come as no surprise that also burnout is a real problem.

Huffington goes on to explain that because of this, sleep is a feminist issue and that it is women who need to lean in and reach top positions in greater numbers so that they can change working culture from the inside. So instead of opting out, according to Huffington at least, women need to stick around, gather in greater numbers, and change the environment.

That’s good, I do agree. Corporate life needs to change and we need to change it. I’m unsure of whether women alone can change it however. Women so quickly get assimilated by the culture and need to adopt masculinist norms and ideals in order to make it to the top, and because of this women aren’t necessarily good role models for other women. And the reason women don’t help each other enough as much as you’d hope may also be related to this. In part it’s due to a fear of being stigmatized in an environment where women constantly need to prove themselves worthy.

But either way, I don’t think this is only a women’s issue. I think both women and men need to and will change corporate culture together. Masculinist work cultures don’t suit all men either and like many including me argue again and again, they just haven’t kept up with the times. So yes, it’s a feminist issue, it’s a women’s issue, and it’s also a men’s issue. It’s a question of wellbeing.

But just the thought of whole societies sleepwalking through life is simply horrific. Let’s get more sleep people! Let’s sleep our way to the top. Or wherever it is you want to go.

P.S. Watch the video clip. Huffington says some very wise things about napping too. As a matter of fact, I think I might just take a nap myself.

Confessions of a meeting hater

It was at my first job after graduating from business school – very many years ago – that I realized how much I hate meetings. I was part of the marketing team at this company and although my colleagues were the nicest people to work with, our meetings were an absolute pain in the rear end. Figuratively and literally – we would sit around for hours and although I really didn’t have a lot of experience of corporate cultures and meetings at the time, something told me that this just can’t be right. I felt like I was wasting hours of my life being bored to death while work was piling up on my desk in my absence. Now, many years later, I have a better idea of what exactly the problem was. There was no proper agenda, things that weren’t relevant to everyone in the room and that everyone really didn’t need to be involved in were discussed at great length. It was just bad meeting culture.

Well, I’ve pretty much hated meetings ever since, although I haven’t been able to admit it until a few years ago (around the time I opted out and decided I don’t want or have to do things in a certain way just because it’s what is expected). I guess one reason I didn’t dare declare my negative feelings about meetings was because I was a part of a working culture where meetings seemed to be the backbone around which everyone’s days and weeks were organized. I suppose I kind of didn’t want to criticize the hand that fed me. But the truth is I do hate meetings. I find they generally get scheduled too often, for too long, with too many people. The discussion is slow and much of it is irrelevant to many of the people there and it makes me feel antsy because instead of being productive, these meetings are mostly time away from things that I need (and want) to be doing instead. And last but not least, they are often just excruciatingly boring.

Well, yesterday morning as I was checking my Facebook newsfeed, I saw an article published in New York Times Magazine titled ‘Meet is Murder’, which of course was very satisfying reading for me. Articles like this give me hope. I feel like there is a growing awareness about the toxicity of bad meeting culture as I increasingly see articles like this. Although based on the meeting behavior I continue to see around me, I’m starting to suspect that what we’re dealing with is not so much a cultural revolution, rather just Facebook being very good at knowing what kinds of things I like and putting them in my newsfeed. But either way, there seems to be some sort of discussion about this going on and that is good!

I once read a very intriguing suggestion for conducting meetings in Wired. It was a couple of years ago and unfortunately I didn’t keep it, but it really stuck with me. The idea was to treat team meetings as sports huddles. Do not book a meeting room. Meet in the corridor standing up. Each team member briefly updates the others on: (1) what they are working on at the moment, (2) how it is going, and (3) what they are planning to do next. The huddle should take no more than 10-15 minutes and then everyone continues on their way. If someone has a problem that he or she needs help with, then book a time and place to solve that particular problem with the relevant people.

I really liked that. Meeting for 10 minutes standing up in the corridor for a quick status update. That I can do.

So, is there anyone else out there who hates traditional meetings as much as I do? Let’s do something about it then. Let’s make meeting culture meaningful. Because you know what? Meet really shouldn’t have to be murder.