New York Lawyer
October 30, 2003

Q:
What did you think of this week�s New York Times magazine article by Lisa Belkin, entitled �Q. Why Don�t More Women Get to the Top? A. They Choose Not to.� I am a woman in a big law firm, which is struggling with the issue of great female attorneys who leave because of lifestyle issues. I found the cover disheartening and the article short sighted. Some insight?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

The article largely focused on female lawyers and therefore is of particular interest to New York Lawyer readers. Anyone who�s interested in this piece -- whose thesis is that the very women one might have expected to be leading the business world, those who are well educated and wealthy, in fact have decided in increasing numbers to �opt out� and spend time at home raising children -- should check out the web forum discussing the article, http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?50@@.f4e3e42.

The web forum provides a fascinating glimpse at a tumultuous range of reactions. Some are gung-ho about the article, mostly women who opted out and found great relief and happiness doing so. Some are cautiously interested, agreeing that the article asks valuable questions but neglects some issues.

And many are hostile. There are a few predominant criticisms. Readers complain that the article didn�t include a cross-section of interviewees, focusing too much on privileged white women. They also argue that the husbands/fathers attached to the women and children in the article were invisible, their opinions unrecorded, leaving readers to assume that these men are happy to fulfill the breadwinner role, even if it means not seeing their kids much. And readers pointed out that the article didn�t address whether there�s actually any �choice� when it comes to work vs. home, due to the miserable track record that flexible work arrangements have in most workplaces, especially law firms.

The most valuable thing about this article is the debate it started.

I do have some worries about the resonance that such a high-profile piece in an influential magazine will have. I�m concerned that decision makers, especially at law firms, will have the cover -- featuring a doe-eyed woman with her overall-clad child in her lap, her back to a ladder in the background, symbolizing the career success she�s rejected -- burned in their brains when they�re deciding the fate of men and women in their firms. I worry that they�ll have preconceptions affirmed (�women will just leave when they have kids�) and thus give females short shrift in advancement or assignments. They also may decide that it�s pointless to dedicate a lot of time to diversity committees and flexible work arrangements and so forth. I am concerned as well that women who are working and have kids will feel marginalized, and that men who are at home taking care of children, or would like to cut back on hours, will feel more than ever like that the care-giving role is a choice they�re not allowed and that society does not support.

But to be more positive, the chief point, from the standpoint of those employed and not �opting out,� is how to jump-start real dedication to flexible work arrangements for all attorneys (and of course people in other workplaces). As the article made clear, many of the women profiled really didn�t have much of a choice; they tried to devise alternative work arrangements, and their employers said, in effect, �It�s our way or the highway.� This is a very common situation, and therefore doesn�t really show the beauty of �choice� that feminism supposedly bestowed at all. It reflects what many see as a non-choice � having to choose between a super-powered career versus a 24/7 parenting schedule.

Management in legal workplaces should look to the future and ask: Is it worth it to frequently lose good attorneys (male and female) due to workplace pressures and long hours? Don�t employers lose lots of money � and get stressed out over and over again -- as a result of having to replace good people? If management could look in the future, they could speculate about what it would be like if good lawyers didn�t leave. What would it be like to have a stable environment, where people had varying schedules depending on their time of life? How can alternative work schedules be made to work, so that flexible schedules (the key to retaining good lawyers) are seen as a viable option and not a career-ender?

Managers might also ponder the fact that demographics are going to work against them very soon, and that the workplace will be starved of qualified workers. Failing to devise flexible work arrangements, failing to figure out ways to re-integrate those who leave the workplace temporarily, may result eventually in employers who are desperate for good employees but haven�t laid the groundwork to meet new challenges. Another demographic reality is that more and more people will need flexible schedules to take care of aging relatives. This will affect men nearly as much as women.

Reforming the workplace, especially for legal employers, requires being realistic about following the money (what it costs the workplace to lose good people, what it costs to have flexible work arrangements, whether the workplace in fact can be more successful by embracing flexibility) and confronting directly the attitude that the only real lawyer is a 24/7 lawyer.

My bottom line is that I wish there had been more context to the article, and more attention to men�s views as well as the constraints that workplace practices impose. I wish the cover had featured a man and a woman, holding their children, looking quizzical, with a headline reading, �Who will stay home and who will go to work? New issues for the new millennium.�

Having said that, I welcome the debate it started, and look forward to succeeding articles on these topics, perhaps produced by Lisa Belkin, perhaps by others. She�s touched a nerve. I�d welcome thoughts from readers about this issue.

Sincerely,
Holly English
Principal Consultant, Values at Work