Work-Life Balance
Jack Welch: Women Take Time Off for Kids at Their Peril
Posted Jul 16, 2009 6:54 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch thinks women who take time off for family are making a risky career move.
Speaking to Human Resource Management at its annual conference on June 28, Welch said women who take time off for family could be passed over for promotions if they are “not there in the clutch,” the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) reports.
“There's no such thing as work-life balance," Welch said. "There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences."
Welch said women who take time off can still "have a nice career," but their chances of reaching the top are smaller, according to the Wall Street Journal account. "We'd love to have more women moving up faster," he said. "But they've got to make the tough choices and know the consequences of each one."
The Am Law Daily noted the story and interviewed a lawyer with a different viewpoint. Chantal Kordula, a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, told the publication that she took off five months after the birth of each of her three children, and still made partner, albeit in a longer time frame.
She went back to a full schedule when she returned to work, but sometimes fits in afternoon parenting duties, according to the Am Law Daily. "You just need to do what works for you and let the chips fall where they may," she told the publication.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Jul 16, 2009 7:11 AM CST
Indeed, the chips always fall where they may. But once you actually get ahead of the buffalo, it is less of a problem.
Flag this comment
dumper
Jul 16, 2009 8:53 AM CST
Bad as that might might be, at least it pales in comparison to the unemployed, homeless man getting jailed for failure to pay child support for a kid who wasn’t his.
Flag this comment
Lee
Jul 16, 2009 12:05 PM CST
Hearing Jack Welch opine about family values is sort of like hearing Keith Richards expound on the dangers of narcotics abuse.
Flag this comment
Jenny
Jul 16, 2009 2:01 PM CST
“There’s no such thing as work-life balance,” Welch said. “There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences.”
I agree 100%. The only people who are getting promoted at my place are the ones who are there every day. You take time off for children, their sporting events, etc…you don’t get ahead.
That is what day care is for people - u either stay at home and watch them or hire someone to do it for you.
Flag this comment
DR
Jul 16, 2009 2:24 PM CST
Jenny @4 said: “The only people who are getting promoted at my place are the ones who are there every day. You take time off for children, their sporting events, etc…you don’t get ahead.”
That’s a bummer. I’ll be sure not to apply for a position there. If “getting ahead” is defined in singular terms of “partner” or “CEO”...then go for it! Happiness and success mean different things to different people. Not all “consquences” are negative.
Flag this comment
Cynical Observer
Jul 16, 2009 11:04 PM CST
What Welch is saying is just common sense.
A woman taking time off for the children is no different from a man taking time off for another worthy pursuit. It would be admirable for a man to take time off to, say, join a humanitarian aid mission in Sudan. And who’s to say that’s not more worthy than another business trip? But if he’s not there when the company needs him, they’ll turn to someone else who will get the reward.
If you choose to put your children ahead of your job, which is a perfectly fine choice to make, then don’t be surprised or upset if your employer puts you second to the people who were there when the work needed to be done. You made a choice on priorities, why shouldn’t the company? Since your children are more important to you anyway, what’s the problem?
Flag this comment
KY Lawyer
Jul 17, 2009 2:15 AM CST
What some posters (once again) fail to consider is that we have a public policy of favoring persons having children. If we did not have such a policy, our nation would eventually disappear. Thus, employers should allow for this in setting their personnel policies.
While joining a humanitarian aid mission may be a great thing to do, it is a relatively short term assignment - unlike parenthood, which lasts a lifetime.
Flag this comment
Harold Berk
Jul 17, 2009 4:43 AM CST
Actually being absent from work to promote the continuation of our species and the development of our civilization should have a little higher ranking in Welch’s human resource priorities, but you must remember that this is the same Jack Welch who rolled over the rights of workers at GE with impunity and had no problem instituting massive lay-offs if the reduced employment costs increased the GE profits and hence his personal salary and bonus.
But remember that sometimes not being present at work can have virtues such as not being present at your law firm when a client, having previously been convicted of securities fraud, comes in and wants your firm to write an opinion justifying non-disclosure in a new securities offering of his past securties violations. You might then feel better being home to raise your child than having to deal with client X.
Flag this comment
Barry Eagar
Jul 17, 2009 5:18 AM CST
Partnerships and other organisations require a team effort for success. Such arrangements often generate a culture of internal competition and peer pressure. So partners work at generally the same frenetic pace.
It stands to reason that non-compliance with that culture will limit the prospects of an aspirant. Even using up all of one’s leave would be considered non-compliance, never mind maternity leave.
Flag this comment
Joann Alba
Jul 17, 2009 5:40 AM CST
Having worked for 35 years and made the choice with each of my children to remain at home for six months, I have absolutely no regrets. My career has been lucrative and the joy that being a parent has been outshines any hefty salary. Why isn’t a solid salary enough? I have always been there for both my clients and my family and I believe my career has been rewarding and challening. For those who want to reach the pinnacle, go for it, but it isn’t bad slightly below.
Flag this comment
Ronn
Jul 17, 2009 5:45 AM CST
If you are going to work in any kind of partnership you have to acknowledge that entity and prioritize it. Partnerships have a life of their own, and you are either central in that life or you are not. It is not wrong to expect a lot out of associates but if they truly don’t want to be there, if they would rather be somewhere else working on something else, that’s okay. You can do what you want, you just can’t have it all.
Flag this comment
J. Decker
Jul 17, 2009 5:47 AM CST
Hurray that someone can avoid being PC all the time and call it for what it is.
You have to work to get a head, and women should not expect a free ride while the rest of us work.
If a firm is to be stylish, they should do it knowing that the woman will bring in business ultimately, once she gets the parenting under control.
After all, it is about being able to pay the rent, and having a woman-friendly place works only when it pays off in the end. If it doesn’t then drop it like a hot potatoe.
Flag this comment
Claire
Jul 17, 2009 5:50 AM CST
Is it just me, of is the “lawyer with a different view” not espousing a different view? She took time off and accepted the consequences of it taking her longer to make partner. That’s exactly what the GE guy said. I hope the place I end up has generous maternity leave - but I certainly don’t expect to make partner as quickly as the men (or women) who don’t take such long leave away from the office. It’s just not reasonable or fair to them.
Flag this comment
Sara Chico
Jul 17, 2009 5:54 AM CST
In 1994 I decided to quit my job as a HR Manager so I can spent more time with my two daughters; why I needed to do that? Because limited minds, as Mr Welch believed that you needed to be in office more than 10 hours a day to be successful. After that, I have develop a successful legal career, and, balanced my family life. So, for Mr. Welch and people who believe like him, balance can be done if you have the correct attitude and desire.
Flag this comment
Hilary
Jul 17, 2009 5:58 AM CST
While I agree that everyone must prioritize, and everyone’s choices come with benefits and downfalls, what bothers me most about this article is that in practice, its not just taking a lot of time off, its taking time off at all.
Here is the problem. Men can have all the children they want without the need to take time off of work, but women have the medical necessity to take time off. The mere ability to get pregnant in the first place is looked down upon in the working world.
While the glass ceiling may not be as thick as it it once was, it is still there. And the women who try to break through it end up giving up the entire idea of children, while the men waiting at the top never even had to think about giving it up.
Flag this comment
Bill
Jul 17, 2009 5:58 AM CST
Makes sense. Life is a series of constant choices; each having different consequences. It should be self-evident that a woman who takes off 6 months or whatever - for any reason - will not be in the same situaiton as a woman (or man) who does not.
BUT
It is, again, all about choices. I, for one, think it’s kind of sad to see some of the women here (one in particular) who have several children, but mom is so driven to become hot-shot partner, and dad also works, so the kids get raised by a nanny. Mom maybe sees the kids for 15 minutes in the morning, nanny has the kids all day, mom gets home maybe at 6 or 6:30, has dinner with the kids (with the Blackberry in her hand the whole time), then the kids go to bed and mom continues working until midnight. The kids barely get to know mom because she’s so busy having a “career”.
Note that Welch did not say a woman could not have a very nice career if she had kids - just that she probably would not get the choice promotions. In my calculation of life balance, I would rather have quality time with my kids - and in order to get quality time, you need quantty time - than be the hotshot rock star at the firm. You can still make a very nice living and have a full and rewarding career, while not being the managing partner at the firm.
I have more respect for the moms who actually take the time off to raise their kids than the ones who drop them off at daycare and nannies all the time. Which activity is more significant and important? Which one will more significantly affect people who are important to you?
As for me, when my wife and I had our first child, she was working in an excellent job that she liked. But she made the conscious decision to put her career on hold so that she could stay home and raise our children. Now, 15 years later, she has reentered the work world and works part-time from home doing web design. Yeah it was a big hit to our household income when she stopped working, but we both agree it was the right thing to do. My kids are more important than being a miliionaire and winning the adulation of co-workers.
Flag this comment
Lawyer Mom
Jul 17, 2009 6:00 AM CST
Hey Jack—-What about the flip side? Do you guarantee “success” to those who follow your prescription? Bet many of the thousands of lawyers laid off in 2009 did. Kids are little only once. No second chances.
Flag this comment
Dad First
Jul 17, 2009 6:05 AM CST
The world would probably be a better place if more men were making the choice to take time off for their families.
Flag this comment
Karen Darby
Jul 17, 2009 6:07 AM CST
Ah, good ‘ol Jack! When I became the first female HR program manager in the Chem-Met Division of GE 35 years ago, Jack was a VP—head of the Engineered Materials Group that oversaw my division. It was at that time that he became known as “Neutron Jack”—for getting rid of employees while leaving the buildings intact. He considered HR (we called them “employee and community relations” people) folks “dinks” who got in his way when he was trying to cut costs. It was during that period that, as an EEO compliance manager and recruiter of minority and female engineers, I decided I should go to law school. I find it amusing that an HR group asked Jack Welch for his opinion. But at least he seems to have mellowed over the years—maybe it’s the influence of his current wife . . . .
Flag this comment
John SMith
Jul 17, 2009 6:07 AM CST
Jack Welch, like many other “leaders of industry”, is an idiot! If successful women cannot have families, who will replace G.E. executives in future generations? American social policies glorify adverse selection! We have a legion of non-producers on welfare and section eight vouchers, and the anti natalist policies of business and industry discourage our most productive young men and women from having families! We cannot endure as a vital nation if these policies continue!
Flag this comment
Carrie
Jul 17, 2009 6:14 AM CST
Here here to Hilary for pointing out what everyone is missing - that the sexist paradigm that exists today places the burden and consequences of child-rearing disproportionately on women. Hopefully most companies aren’t as narrow minded as Jack and many of the folks making comments here and value all parents contributions in and out of the work-place.
Flag this comment
Bush One
Jul 17, 2009 6:14 AM CST
J. Decker is secretly Dan Quayle
Flag this comment
Susan
Jul 17, 2009 6:15 AM CST
Amen. Women who take all this time off work don’t deserve the big promotion. They haven’t put in the time to get it and giving it to them would only be a slap in the face of those women and men who have worked long hours.
Flag this comment
Chris C.
Jul 17, 2009 6:16 AM CST
I’m appalled at some of the commentary of my male colleagues above and will be glad when they retire, and a Jack Welch diatribe at SHRM has no place in an ABA of the future. Haven’t we been able to move beyond the insanity of the Welchian ‘80s and ‘90s? Do we all want to have three spouses?
Maybe you do, and more power to you, but when your kids only show up at your funeral to collect their part of the inheritance, well, it’s your funeral.
As for me, I will be a good father, take the time I need to propagate and nurture my small share of the greater human race, continually seek out more challenging employment opportunities wherever they may be (including ditching my firm at a moment’s notice for better advancement elsewhere), and hope beyond hope we don’t turn out like Mike Judge’s Idiocracy. From a global perspective, if we are to preserve our national security and global position, we will need your highly educated and well-adjusted children far more than your next career milestone. However, enjoy the money, and the quiet funeral. Thanks!!
Flag this comment
Bush One
Jul 17, 2009 6:16 AM CST
Claire @#13: Maybe it’s not a different view, but she wasn’t a total dick in how she said it. I think that’s the difference.
Flag this comment
Susan
Jul 17, 2009 6:18 AM CST
What you do at home and for your children has no bearing on your company. You are hired to do a job. The Company doesn’t give a damn about your kids or who raises them and who contributes what to the family structure. It’s harsh but that is reality. Stop crying about it.
The Company only cares if you will be able to work late to finish that proposal or if you will be at home with your kids. If you are at home…you are replaceable by someone willing to work the long hours.
Flag this comment
Michael Duff
Jul 17, 2009 6:18 AM CST
Jack wears the face he deserves. This, too, will pass. I’d rather talk to the happy Swedes.
Flag this comment
Dave
Jul 17, 2009 6:19 AM CST
About ten years ago I saw a 20 something reading Welch’s book in an airport. I was tempted to rip it from his hands, dump it in the trash and give him $25 for his trouble. Welch’s mechanims of management are short sighted and GE pays for them every day. It is nice that the legal profession at least provides an opportunity for merit based careers. Heck, if you can try a case, put a merger together, devise a good estate plan, etc., then you can have a great career regardless of what you choose to do outside the office.
Flag this comment
Pedro
Jul 17, 2009 6:21 AM CST
Now that Obama is president, after he signed free helath care for all workers, he will mandate that we all have a union and that we alll work 9-5 only. no more forcing us to work overtime or long hours to help the white man get ahead.
We all deserve at least 100,000 no matter what job we do. We should all work 8 hours a day and get paid the same.
Flag this comment
Daniel Homick
Jul 17, 2009 6:24 AM CST
Fortunately for Mr. Welch, his mother stayed home to have him as a baby. Where would he be today if she followed his advice?
Flag this comment
Vicki
Jul 17, 2009 6:26 AM CST
Both Jack and Chantal are saying the same thing—if you take time off from total dedication to work, you have to be aware of and accept the consequences. Jack appears to think the consequences may be dire, and chose to direct his remarks at one particular situation, and Chantal, having been through that situation says, maybe not so dire as Jack imagines (in my experience, that’s true).
Flag this comment
RC
Jul 17, 2009 6:26 AM CST
J. Decker at #12, if you think having children and all of the work that goes into that is a “free ride” then you obviously have no children yourself. Or if you do, you spend no time with them. As others have said here, where do you think CEO’s and Partners come from? They certainly don’t grow on trees. And why should a woman have to make the decision between career and family? The most hard working people I know are mothers. So while you Partners and CEO’s enjoy making bonuses off of the backs of your frazzled associates, many who are parents torn between a job and family, just remember that you wouldn’t be where you are if not for your mother.
Flag this comment
Ms. No Regrets
Jul 17, 2009 6:31 AM CST
Claire @ 13:
No, it’s not just you, they are both saying the same thing, except that Welch advises forethought and planning, and Kordula appears to be content to roll the dice.
You make your choices and accept the consequences. My dad taught me that basic life lesson long, long ago. Apparently, there have been some recent subsequent generations that reject that lesson.
Best of luck to them. One can reject it, but that won’t make it go away.
Flag this comment
Annoyed
Jul 17, 2009 6:35 AM CST
Are there any other HR professionals out there completely annoyed that SHRM asked Jack Welch to speak at the conference? Is this really what he said? Does he think he made some profound breakthrough? I’m pretty sure the world is aware that a working woman who has a family and takes time off for her family will not be a competitive candidate amongst her male peers for a promotion (unless she’s really just that good). But since when does choosing to spend time with your children, to be there as a positive, influential parent create ‘consequences’? Putting a negative conotation on it is saying that it is somehow a bad decision. Let’s just call the situation what it is: a choice for working women with families to make, and a result of each decision, not a CONSEQUENCE. Thank you, Jack, for your caveman explanation.
Flag this comment
J. Williams
Jul 17, 2009 6:35 AM CST
It is sad that family has taken a back seat in today’s society. Mothers and fathers are becoming absent from their children’s lives and other people are left to the rearing of their children. For example, computers, televisions, video games and friends. I do believe both women and men can find a balance between work and family, and I am willing to make the sacrifice for my family. Our world wonders why crime rates are so high, why children are bringing guns to school, why teenage pregnancy is through the roof, well open your eyes it is because family is no longer important. CEO’s have the power to put family back in the front seat and quit hiding behind the veil women (fathers) who take time off for their family may be passed over for promotions because “they are not their in the clutch.”
Wake up America
Flag this comment
Marc
Jul 17, 2009 6:36 AM CST
Wow, Pedro, that sure is an incivsive comment. Did you spend all day thinking that up?
And, gee, I sure hope I get some of that free “helath care.”
Flag this comment
Lin
Jul 17, 2009 6:37 AM CST
Finally, someone speaks the truth without worrying about how it will bother the femi-nazi movement. There really is no work-life balance. The same women who demand equality in the workplace fail to realize the financial impact on their companies. If a child gets sick, tell me how many times the father will take a vacation day to stay home. The answer is almost never. Most women become less reliable after having children for this very reason. And if you are one of those who enjoys party planning and uploading photos during company hours, you need to do everyone a favor: be a stay-at-home mom and adjust your lifestyle, and stop pushing your workload onto your co-workers.
Flag this comment
Corey A.
Jul 17, 2009 6:39 AM CST
What I seem to sense here is that all the folks who made the choice to focus on career rather than children and are in advanced positions are looking down upon those of us who made the opposite choice, but are just as happy. Those of you who picked job over junior, and it worked out smashingly for your career, kudos to you, you deserve your successes, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. But please understand that you didn’t necessarily make the right choice, you made YOUR choice. We made OUR choice too, and we’re just as happy, even though we’re lower on the paygrade than you. We’re not saying you’re bad parents, so there’s no need to be condescending and accuse us of being bad workers.
Flag this comment
RL
Jul 17, 2009 6:39 AM CST
Jack Welch is a little too full of himself. Forget four months maternity leave . . . I took four years off to raise my kids and returned to pretty much the same position that I had when I left the workforce. Granted, a lost a few years out of my career, but I would not expect to get credit for time when I was not working, either.
If a woman is smart, qualified, and capable, there is no reason she should not be able to take time away and then pick up where she left off. No one will blink an eye once this becomes the norm, and it will become the norm if more women at the top have the guts to actually do it.
Flag this comment
Annoyed
Jul 17, 2009 6:39 AM CST
I would like to COMMEND the working mother (or father) who is SELFLESS enough in her career to take time off for what is more important-FAMILY.
Flag this comment
Napoleon D.
Jul 17, 2009 6:41 AM CST
Mark @ #36—-lay off Pedro. Pedro, I’d vote for you.
Flag this comment
Me Law
Jul 17, 2009 6:43 AM CST
Jack Welch is a dinosaur whose most recent achievements include cheating on his ex-wife. Clearly his view of - and respect for - women in general is skewed. What’s incredible is how many of these commentators (decades younger than Mr. Welch, I will assume) continue to buy into the status quo of work = life. Fortunately, today more than half of all graduates from law school are women. I look forward to the gradual sea change in American law firms, when spending some time with your family actual becomes an accepted and respected practice.
Flag this comment
Einstein
Jul 17, 2009 6:44 AM CST
Their viewpoints are identical! Ms. Kordula is having “a nice career” just as Jack Welch stated. There is a great squib about this and m/f pay differences in the book Panicology.
Flag this comment
Jennifer
Jul 17, 2009 6:49 AM CST
When raising children no longer is stereotyped as “women’s work,” the consequences of delayed/stalled careers attributed to the care (rather than the birth) of children also will no longer be controversial.
Flag this comment
Mercedes
Jul 17, 2009 6:58 AM CST
What bothers me most about this article is no one defines what “taking time off” means, with the exception of the five-month anecdote. Is taking 6 weeks off after the birth of a child the same as a woman who works part-time?
I work at a litigation boutique where several of the women - including our female partner - work part-time and have very successful careers. If being successful only means working in a sweatshop firm where you are expected to bill 80 hours a week and can’t have five minutes to yourself, then success doesn’t sound very appealing.
Flag this comment
M. Lewis
Jul 17, 2009 6:59 AM CST
Mr. Welch is right. What we, women, have to do is proclame equity in our homes, and make males like Mr. Welch assume more responsabilities in the house and with the kids in order for us to dedicate more time to our jobs and to our professions. In that way “what is equal is not an advantage”.
Flag this comment
...Lawyer in London
Jul 17, 2009 7:00 AM CST
To LIN: it seems hypocritical to lash out on the people who upload pics at work while you are doing the same….checking this website, reading the story, the comments and commenting…
Flag this comment
Ginette
Jul 17, 2009 7:00 AM CST
I’m flabbergasted by this article. What is more important: spending quality time with your family or a career? Family outweighs work. Then, when children turn out to be criminals or serial killers, parents are being blamed for never being there for their children. I would never choose my job over my precious baby.
Flag this comment
Balance Rocks
Jul 17, 2009 7:06 AM CST
Working mothers are working their way up in spite of comments like that because we are tough, determined, can multitask like nobody’s business and have perspective.
Moreover, we have good balanced personalities so clients like us better than the single minded insanely driven types.
You think there’s no such thing as balance Welch? That’s just cause you never figured out how to balance.
Flag this comment
Honza Prchal
Jul 17, 2009 7:06 AM CST
Tough choice? What kind of person would choose career over family? Women leave men who do, but most men prefer women who do so.
The radically selfish or terminally deluded would choose a career over kids, but for increasing numbers of women the old 70s myth of “having it all” has yielded to the reality of choices Diane Keaton faced in Baby Boom.
As usual, journalists and lawyers are lagging indicators, and the more high profile, the more they lag.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.