Making the Journey Toward Cultural Change in Healthcare

Making the Journey Toward Cultural Change in HealthcareCulture change is not a program with a completion date, nor is it a quick fix. It is an ongoing journey – a journey that requires leaders to understand the current state of the organization, establish a clear vision, align behaviors and instill accountability.

Keeping Critical Employees is About More Than Money

Keeping Critical Employees is About More Than MoneyDownload the executives survival guide: http://www.healthleaders.com/survival/images/survival_guide_2005.pdf

Harvard President on Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce

Harvard President Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the
Science & Engineering Workforce
Lawrence H. Summers
Cambridge, Mass.
January 14, 2005

I asked Richard, when he invited me to come here and speak, whether he
wanted an institutional talk about Harvard's policies toward diversity or
whether he wanted some questions asked and some attempts at provocation,
because I was willing to do the second and didn't feel like doing the
first. And so we have agreed that I am speaking unofficially and not using
this as an occasion to lay out the many things we're doing at Harvard to
promote the crucial objective of diversity. There are many aspects of the
problems you're discussing and it seems to me they're all very important
from a national point of view. I'm going to confine myself to addressing
one portion of the problem, or of the challenge we're discussing, which is
the issue of women's representation in tenured positions in science and
engineering at top universities and research institutions, not because
that's necessarily the most important problem or the most interesting
problem, but because it's the only one of these problems that I've made an
effort to think in a very serious way about. The other prefatory comment
that I would make is that I am going to, until most of the way through,
attempt to adopt an entirely positive, rather than normative approach, and
just try to think about and offer some hypotheses as to why we observe
what we observe without seeing this through the kind of judgmental
tendency that inevitably is connected with all our common goals of
equality. It is after all not the case that the role of women in science
is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in
an important activity and whose underrepresentation contributes to a
shortage of role models for others who are considering being in that
group. To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am
confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in
investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our
society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the
National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially
underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all
phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's
important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons
for underrepresentation.

There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very
substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have
been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end
scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of
these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the
first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is
what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high
end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and
patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their
importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.

Maybe it would be helpful to just, for a moment, broaden the problem,
or the issue, beyond science and engineering. I've had the opportunity to
discuss questions like this with chief executive officers at major
corporations, the managing partners of large law firms, the directors of
prominent teaching hospitals, and with the leaders of other prominent
professional service organizations, as well as with colleagues in higher
education. In all of those groups, the story is fundamentally the same.
Twenty or twenty-five years ago, we started to see very substantial
increases in the number of women who were in graduate school in this
field. Now the people who went to graduate school when that started are
forty, forty-five, fifty years old. If you look at the top cohort in
our activity, it is not only nothing like fifty-fifty, it is nothing like
what we thought it was when we started having a third of the women, a
third of the law school class being female, twenty or twenty-five years
ago. And the relatively few women who are in the highest ranking places
are disproportionately either unmarried or without children, with the
emphasis differing depending on just who you talk to. And that is a
reality that is present and that one has exactly the same conversation in
almost any high-powered profession. What does one make of that? I think it
is hard-and again, I am speaking completely descriptively and
non-normatively-to say that there are many professions and many
activities, and the most prestigious activities in our society expect of
people who are going to rise to leadership positions in their forties near
total commitments to their work. They expect a large number of hours in
the office, they expect a flexibility of schedules to respond to
contingency, they expect a continuity of effort through the life cycle,
and they expect-and this is harder to measure-but they expect that the
mind is always working on the problems that are in the job, even when the
job is not taking place. And it is a fact about our society that that
is a level of commitment that a much higher fraction of married men have
been historically prepared to make than of married women. That's not a
judgment about how it should be, not a judgment about what they should
expect. But it seems to me that it is very hard to look at the data and
escape the conclusion that that expectation is meeting with the choices
that people make and is contributing substantially to the outcomes
that we observe. One can put it differently. Of a class, and the work that
Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz are doing will, I'm sure, over time,
contribute greatly to our understanding of these issues and for all I know
may prove my conjectures completely wrong. Another way to put the point is
to say, what fraction of young women in their mid-twenties make a decision
that they don't want to have a job that they think about eighty hours a
week. What fraction of young men make a decision that they're unwilling to
have a job that they think about eighty hours a week, and to observe what
the difference is. And that has got to be a large part of what is
observed. Now that begs entirely the normative questions-which I'll get to
a little later-of, is our society right to expect that level of effort
from people who hold the most prominent jobs? Is our society right to have
familial arrangements in which women are asked to make that choice and
asked more to make that choice than men? Is our society right to ask of
anybody to have a prominent job at this level of intensity, and I think
those are all questions that I want to come back to. But it seems to me
that it is impossible to look at this pattern and look at its
pervasiveness and not conclude that something of the sort that I am
describing has to be of significant importance. To buttress conviction and
theory with anecdote, a young woman who worked very closely with me at the
Treasury and who has subsequently gone on to work at Google highly
successfully, is a 1994 graduate of Harvard Business School. She reports
that of her first year section, there were twenty-two women, of whom three
are working full time at this point. That may, the dean of the Business
School reports to me, that that is not an implausible observation given
their experience with their alumnae. So I think in terms of positive
understanding, the first very important reality is just what I would call
the, who wants to do high-powered intense work?

The second thing that I think one has to recognize is present is what I
would call the combination of, and here, I'm focusing on something that
would seek to answer the question of why is the pattern different in
science and engineering, and why is the representation even lower and more
problematic in science and engineering than it is in other fields. And
here, you can get a fair distance, it seems to me, looking at a relatively
simple hypothesis. It does appear that on many, many different human
attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ,
mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear
evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there
is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a
female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are
and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think
is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top
twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are
two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking
about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's
talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations
above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small
differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large
differences in the available pool substantially out. I did a very crude
calculation, which I'm sure was wrong and certainly was unsubtle, twenty
different ways. I looked at the Xie and Shauman paper-looked at the book,
rather-looked at the evidence on the sex ratios in the top 5% of twelfth
graders. If you look at those-they're all over the map, depends on which
test, whether it's math, or science, and so forth-but 50% women, one woman
for every two men, would be a high-end estimate from their estimates. From
that, you can back out a difference in the implied standard deviations
that works out to be about 20%. And from that, you can work out the
difference out several standard deviations. If you do that calculation-and
I have no reason to think that it couldn't be refined in a hundred
ways-you get five to one, at the high end. Now, it's pointed out by one of
the papers at this conference that these tests are not a very good measure
and are not highly predictive with respect to people's ability to do that.
And that's absolutely right. But I don't think that resolves the issue at
all. Because if my reading of the data is right-it's something people can
argue about-that there are some systematic differences in variability
in different populations, then whatever the set of attributes are that
are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at
MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley, those are probably different in their
standard deviations as well. So my sense is that the unfortunate truth-I
would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to
address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were
true-is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the
differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem.

There may also be elements, by the way, of differing, there is some,
particularly in some attributes, that bear on engineering, there is
reasonably strong evidence of taste differences between little girls
and little boys that are not easy to attribute to socialization. I
just returned from Israel, where we had the opportunity to visit a
kibbutz, and to spend some time talking about the history of the kibbutz
movement, and it is really very striking to hear how the movement started
with an absolute commitment, of a kind one doesn't encounter in other
places, that everybody was going to do the same jobs. Sometimes the women
were going to fix the tractors, and the men were going to work in the
nurseries, sometimes the men were going to fix the tractors and the women
were going to work in the nurseries, and just under the pressure of what
everyone wanted, in a hundred different kibbutzes, each one of which
evolved, it all moved in the same direction. So, I think, while I would
prefer to believe otherwise, I guess my experience with my two and a half
year old twin daughters who were not given dolls and who were given
trucks, and found themselves saying to each other, look, daddy truck is
carrying the baby truck, tells me something. And I think it's just
something that you probably have to recognize. There are two other
hypotheses that are all over. One is socialization. Somehow little
girls are all socialized towards nursing and little boys are socialized
towards building bridges. No doubt there is some truth in that. I
would be hesitant about assigning too much weight to that hypothesis for
two reasons. First, most of what we've learned from empirical psychology
in the last fifteen years has been that people naturally attribute things
to socialization that are in fact not attributable to socialization. We've
been astounded by the results of separated twins studies. The confident
assertions that autism was a reflection of parental characteristics that
were absolutely supported and that people knew from years of observational
evidence have now been proven to be wrong. And so, the human mind has a
tendency to grab to the socialization hypothesis when you can see it, and
it often turns out not to be true. The second empirical problem is that
girls are persisting longer and longer. When there were no girls majoring
in chemistry, when there were no girls majoring in biology, it was much
easier to blame parental socialization. Then, as we are increasingly
finding today, the problem is what's happening when people are twenty, or
when people are twenty-five, in terms of their patterns, with which they
drop out. Again, to the extent it can be addressed, it's a terrific thing
to address.

The most controversial in a way, question, and the most difficult
question to judge, is what is the role of discrimination? To what extent
is there overt discrimination? Surely there is some. Much more
tellingly, to what extent are there pervasive patterns of passive
discrimination and stereotyping in which people like to choose people like
themselves, and the people in the previous group are disproportionately
white male, and so they choose people who are like themselves, who are
disproportionately white male. No one who's been in a university
department or who has been involved in personnel processes can deny that
this kind of taste does go on, and it is something that happens, and it is
something that absolutely, vigorously needs to be combated. On the
other hand, I think before regarding it as pervasive, and as the dominant
explanation of the patterns we observe, there are two points that should
make one hesitate. The first is the fallacy of composition. No doubt it is
true that if any one institution makes a major effort to focus on reducing
stereotyping, on achieving diversity, on hiring more people, no doubt it
can succeed in hiring more. But each person it hires will come from a
different institution, and so everyone observes that when an institution
works very hard at this, to some extent they are able to produce better
results. If I stand up at a football game and everybody else is sitting
down, I can see much better, but if everybody stands up, the views may get
a little better, but they don't get a lot better. And there's a real
question as to how plausible it is to believe that there is anything like
half as many people who are qualified to be scientists at top ten schools
and who are now not at top ten schools, and that's the argument that one
has to make in thinking about this as a national problem rather than an
individual institutional problem. The second problem is the one that Gary
Becker very powerfully pointed out in addressing racial discrimination
many years ago. If it was really the case that everybody was
discriminating, there would be very substantial opportunities for a
limited number of people who were not prepared to discriminate to assemble
remarkable departments of high quality people at relatively limited cost
simply by the act of their not discriminating, because of what it would
mean for the pool that was available. And there are certainly examples of
institutions that have focused on increasing their diversity to their
substantial benefit, but if there was really a pervasive pattern of
discrimination that was leaving an extraordinary number of high-quality
potential candidates behind, one suspects that in the highly competitive
academic marketplace, there would be more examples of institutions that
succeeded substantially by working to fill the gap. And I think one sees
relatively little evidence of that. So my best guess, to provoke you,
of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is
the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and
employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the
special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic
aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those
considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving
socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing
better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than
for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding
what they are, and working very hard to address them.

What's to be done? And what further questions should one know the
answers to? Let me take a second, first to just remark on a few questions
that it seems to me are ripe for research, and for all I know, some of
them have been researched. First, it would be very useful to know, with
hard data, what the quality of marginal hires are when major diversity
efforts are mounted. When major diversity efforts are mounted, and
consciousness is raised, and special efforts are made, and you look five
years later at the quality of the people who have been hired during that
period, how many are there who have turned out to be much better than the
institutional norm who wouldn't have been found without a greater search.
And how many of them are plausible compromises that aren't unreasonable,
and how many of them are what the right-wing critics of all of this
suppose represent clear abandonments of quality standards. I don't
know the answer, but I think if people want to move the world on this
question, they have to be willing to ask the question in ways that could
face any possible answer that came out. Second, and by the way, I think a
more systematic effort to look at citation records of male and female
scholars in disciplines where citations are relatively well-correlated
with academic rank and with people's judgments of quality would be very
valuable. Of course, most of the critiques of citations go to reasons why
they should not be useful in judging an individual scholar. Most of them
are not reasons why they would not be useful in comparing two large groups
of scholars and so there is significant potential, it seems to me, for
citation analysis in this regard. Second, what about objective versus
subjective factors in hiring? I've been exposed, by those who want to see
the university hiring practices changed to favor women more and to assure
more diversity, to two very different views. One group has urged that we
make the processes consistently more clear-cut and objective, based on
papers, numbers of papers published, numbers of articles cited,
objectivity, measurement of performance, no judgments of potential, no
reference to other things, because if it's made more objective, the
subjectivity that is associated with discrimination and which invariably
works to the disadvantage of minority groups will not be present. I've
also been exposed to exactly the opposite view, that those criteria and
those objective criteria systematically bias the comparisons away from
many attributes that those who contribute to the diversity have: a greater
sense of collegiality, a greater sense of institutional responsibility.
Somebody ought to be able to figure out the answer to the question of, if
you did it more objectively versus less objectively, what would happen.
Then you can debate whether you should or whether you shouldn't, if
objective or subjective is better. But that question ought to be a
question that has an answer, that people can find. Third, the third kind
of question is, what do we know about search procedures in universities?
Is it the case that more systematic comprehensive search processes lead to
minority group members who otherwise would have not been noticed being
noticed? Or does fetishizing the search procedure make it very difficult
to pursue the targets of opportunity that are often available arising out
of particular family situations or particular moments, and does
fetishizing and formalizing search procedures further actually work to the
disadvantage of minority group members. Again, everybody's got an opinion;
I don't think anybody actually has a clue as to what the answer is.
Fourth, what do we actually know about the incidence of financial
incentives and other support for child care in terms of what happens to
people's career patterns. I've been struck at Harvard that there's
something unfortunate and ironic about the fact that if you're a faculty
member and you have a kid who's 18 who goes to college, we in effect,
through an interest-free loan, give you about $9,000. If you have a
six-year-old, we give you nothing. And I don't think we're very different
from most other universities in this regard, but there is something odd
about that strategic choice, if the goal is to recruit people to come to
the university. But I don't think we know much about the child care issue.
The fifth question-which it seems to me would be useful to study and to
actually learn the answer to-is what do we know, or what can we learn,
about the costs of career interruptions. There is something we would
like to believe. We would like to believe that you can take a year off, or
two years off, or three years off, or be half-time for five years, and it
affects your productivity during the time, but that it really doesn't have
any fundamental effect on the career path. And a whole set of conclusions
would follow from that in terms of flexible work arrangements and so
forth. And the question is, in what areas of academic life and in what
ways is it actually true. Somebody reported to me on a study that they
found, I don't remember who had told me about this-maybe it was you,
Richard-that there was a very clear correlation between the average length
of time, from the time a paper was cited. That is, in fields where the
average papers cited had been written nine months ago, women had a much
harder time than in fields where the average thing cited had been written
ten years ago. And that is suggestive in this regard. On the discouraging
side of it, someone remarked once that no economist who had gone to work
at the President's Council of Economic Advisors for two years had done
highly important academic work after they returned. Now, I'm sure there
are counterexamples to that, and I'm sure people are kind of processing
that Tobin's Q is the best-known counterexample to that proposition, and
there are obviously different kinds of effects that happen from working in
Washington for two years. But it would be useful to explore a variety
of kinds of natural interruption experiments, to see what actual
difference it makes, and to see whether it's actually true, and to see in
what ways interruptions can be managed, and in what fields it makes a
difference. I think it's an area in which there's conviction but where
it doesn't seem to me there's an enormous amount of evidence. What should
we all do? I think the case is overwhelming for employers trying to be the
[unintelligible] employer who responds to everybody else's discrimination
by competing effectively to locate people who others are discriminating
against, or to provide different compensation packages that will attract
the people who would otherwise have enormous difficulty with child care.
I think a lot of discussion of issues around child care, issues around
extending tenure clocks, issues around providing family benefits, are
enormously important. I think there's a strong case for monitoring and
making sure that searches are done very carefully and that there are
enough people looking and watching that that pattern of choosing people
like yourself is not allowed to take insidious effect. But I think
it's something that has to be done with very great care because it slides
easily into pressure to achieve given fractions in given years, which runs
the enormous risk of people who were hired because they were terrific
being made to feel, or even if not made to feel, being seen by others as
having been hired for some other reason. And I think that's something we
all need to be enormously careful of as we approach these issues, and it's
something we need to do, but I think it's something that we need to do
with great care.

Let me just conclude by saying that I've given you my best guesses
after a fair amount of reading the literature and a lot of talking to
people. They may be all wrong. I will have served my purpose if I have
provoked thought on this question and provoked the marshalling of evidence
to contradict what I have said. But I think we all need to be thinking
very hard about how to do better on these issues and that they are too
important to sentimentalize rather than to think about in as rigorous and
careful ways as we can. That's why I think conferences like this are very,
very valuable. Thank you.

Feminists Get Hysterical by Heather Mac Donald, First it was Harvard vs. Summers—and now Estrich vs. Kinsley.

Feminists Get Hysterical by Heather Mac Donald

Brailer outlines national health IT goals, challenges at HIMSS

AuntMinnie, Printer FriendlyDALLAS - Healthcare information technology isn't about software and computers. IT exists to help physicians make better treatment decisions, nurses and pharmacists deliver safer care, and consumers make better choices among treatment options, according to Dr. David Brailer, U.S. Health and Human Services National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

Fw: Furor Lingers as Harvard Chief Gives Details of Talk on Women

Furor Lingers as Harvard Chief Gives Details of Talk on Women

By PATRICK D. HEALY and SARA RIMER

Published: February 18, 2005

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 17 - Bowing to intense pressure from his faculty, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, on Thursday released a month-old transcript of his contentious closed-door remarks about the shortage of women in the sciences and engineering. The transcript revealed several provocative statements by Dr. Summers about the "intrinsic aptitude" of women, the career pressures they face and discrimination within universities.

	nt

Dr. Summers's remarks, which have only been described by others until now, have fueled a widening crisis on campus, with several professors talking about taking a vote of no confidence on the president next week. - That idea alone is unprecedented at Harvard in modern times.

Among his comments to a conference of economists last month, according to the transcript, Dr. Summers, a former secretary of the United States Treasury, compared the relatively low number of women in the sciences to the numbers of Catholics in investment banking, whites in the National Basketball Association and Jews in farming.

He theorized that a "much higher fraction of married men" than married women were willing to work 80-hour weeks to attain "high powered" jobs. He said racial and sex discrimination needed to be "absolutely, vigorously" combated, yet he argued that bias could not entirely explain the lack of diversity in the sciences. At that point, the Harvard leader suggested he believed that the innate aptitude of women was a factor behind their low numbers in the sciences and engineering.

"My best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon - by far - is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity; that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude; and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination," Dr. Summers said, according to the transcript.

"I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them," he added.

Over and over in the transcript, he made clear that he might be wrong in his theories, and he challenged researchers to study his propositions.

He also urged research on "the quality of marginal hires" to the faculty when efforts to diversify are under way. Do these hires, he asked, eventually turn into star professors? Or "plausible compromises" that are not unreasonable additions to the faculty? And "how many of them are what the right-wing critics of all of this suppose represent clear abandonments of quality standards?"

Several professors said Thursday that they were only more furious after reading his precise remarks , saying they felt he believed women were intellectually inferior to men.

Everett I. Mendelsohn, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, said that once he read the remarks, he could understand why Dr. Summers "might have wanted to keep it a secret."

"Where he seems to be off the mark particularly is in his sweeping claims that women don't have the ability to do well in high-powered jobs," said Professor Mendelsohn, who was one of a group of faculty members who sharply criticized Dr. Summers's leadership at a meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on Tuesday. "There's an implication that they've taken themselves out of that role. But he brings forward no evidence."

But Dr. Summers seemed to back away from those theories on Thursday in a letter to the faculty released with the 7,000-word transcript. In it, he said he should "have spoken differently on matters so complex," and he said he had "substantially understated the impact of socialization and discrimination."

"The issue of gender difference is far more complex than comes through in my comments," he said in the letter.

The senior member of Harvard's governing corporation, James Houghton, released a letter shortly after the transcript was made public, offering praise and support for Dr. Summers.

Undercover Mom

January 22, 2004
WORK & FAMILY
Undercover Mom: How Working Women Swap Roles Through Day
By Sue Shellenbarger

 

The Wall Street Journal
 

 

 When Lisa Dugal dropped into her kids' school briefly for a parent social one morning, two mothers rushed up to her in surprise. Used to seeing her as a jeans-clad classroom volunteer, they were startled by her high-powered outfit -- a dressy suit, stockings and heels.

 

Eyeing her "really oddly," Ms. Dugal says, the mothers asked, "What's the matter? Where are you going?"

 

When Ms. Dugal, a principal at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, New York, said she was going to work, one of the mothers replied, "Wow! We didn't think you worked!"

 

Do you know who that woman painting faces in your kid's classroom really is? It might be Undercover Mom -- an executive mother gone incognito. More working mothers are integrating work and community roles so smoothly that the people around them don't even notice they're juggling multiple identities. Some choose outfits that can make the leap between work and home; others manage to swap clothes several times a day without drawing attention.

 

They go to all that trouble, most Undercover Moms say, to strike a better balance. Many camouflage their juggling act out of politeness, to keep from distracting the people around them from the tasks at hand. Others want to avoid criticism from people who think mothers should stay home.

 

No one notices that Alice McCaslin's outfit is designed for quick changes when she reports to her job as a senior financial analyst at Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, Ill. But Ms. McCaslin deliberately favors simple pants, turtlenecks and blazers over silk blouses with 12 buttons or skirts and stockings, just so she can get into and out of them fast.

 

When the time came last fall to leave the office, pick up her two children and get to the soccer field to coach her daughter's team, she changed in two minutes flat. Within an hour of leaving the office, she was on the field with the kids in sweats and T-shirt. "I don't think people realize I work," Ms. McCaslin says.

 

Like Clark Kent ducking into a phone booth, Undercover Moms have learned to change in close quarters at high speed. No one on last fall's kindergarten field trip to a pumpkin patch near Portland, Ore., could have known that chaperone Jacquelyn Pawela-Crew is a corporate scientist. Only minutes were needed afterward for the Portland mother to slip into the back seat of her car, swap her jeans and boots for office attire and re-emerge as a materials engineer for Intel. She was at her office 20 minutes later.

 

Karen Ferguson, executive vice president at Resources Connection in Parsippany, N.J., and mother of three, once jammed so many varied activities into her workday that she found herself changing from business suit to workout shorts behind the wheel of her car at a stoplight. Talking to a co-worker on her cellphone headset while pulling up the elastic waistband, she said, "You're not going to believe what I'm doing."

 

Why do working moms go to such extremes to change roles seamlessly? Some fear being ostracized or criticized by at-home mothers. "When you live in a place where most women don't work, it's not necessarily viewed by everybody as a positive thing to do," Ms. Ferguson says. So she keeps a low profile. "You want to fit in. You want your children to fit in."

 

Most of the mothers I interviewed say they fly below the radar because they can -- because the work force has become so dispersed, and their schedules so flexible, that they have the freedom to be creative in using their time.

 

In the past, the concentration of corporate employees in big central offices made it harder for workers to mask roles. But now, more than half the work force, or 51%, work at least sometimes from home, on the road, or at customer or satellite offices, according to a survey of 2,057 corporate employees and their families by the American Business Collaboration, an eight-company coalition working to improve dependent care and work-life programs. This flexibility allows better work-life balance, says ABC Manager Deborah Phillips.

 

When stealth moms go virtual, the sky's the limit on blending roles. IBM Group Vice President Nancy Roath recently stood in her kitchen baking chocolate-chip cookies while talking on a telephone headset with a Tokyo co-worker and carrying on an instant-message conversation on her laptop with another co-worker -- all at the same time. Neither of her co-workers knew the mother of two teenagers was simultaneously stocking the cookie jar, she says; when she turned on the mixer, she hit the "mute" button.

 

Before you all fire off angry e-mails saying dads juggle roles too, I'll say it: Working fathers can blend work and parenting too. But I just don't see men integrating work and family as seamlessly as women, or moving back and forth several times within a workday. And it's been a long time (read it: never) since I've seen a dad changing from a suit to soccer shorts in a parked car.

 

Many Undercover Moms, on the other hand, regard transparency of their roles as a reflection of success. Ms. Dugal, Allendale, N.J., who works a flexible part-time schedule, thinks the fact that other moms don't always know about her job is a good sign. "For me," she says, "it is very telling. It shows me I've struck the balance I'm trying to achieve."

DRESSING FOR SUCCESS

What the Undercover Mom is wearing at the office:

• Turtlenecks and twin sets (no time-consuming buttons)
 
• Pants with elastic waist (for quick changes in the car)
 
• Loose jacket (washable, so no dry cleaning)
 
• Low-heeled boots (skip the stockings, step right onto the soccer field)
 

Avoid:

• High heels (not good for chasing kids)
 
• Short skirts (requires hose and dress shoes)
 
• Silk blouses (oh, the stains!)
 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sue Shellenbarger writes Work & Family on Thursdays. The goal of the column is to help readers manage the relationship between work and their family and personal lives. It focuses on innovative solutions to work-family conflict, new corporate strategies for helping employees balance their lives, and new trends and developments that affect readers' work-life balance.

 

Sue has been a Wall Street Journal reporter, editor, bureau chief and columnist for 16 years, working in Chicago and, currently, from her home outside Portland, Ore. She is a former contributing editor to Parenting magazine. In 1994, she received the "Exceptional Merit Media Award," or EMMA, from the National Women's Political Caucus and Radcliffe College for outstanding coverage of issues of special concern to women. Sue grew up on a farm in Leonidas, Mich., and has a master's degree in journalism from Northwestern University.

 

Off the job, she hikes, reads, listens to music and, with her husband, Richard O'Connor, a public-school administrator, cares for her family -- their two children, Cristin and James, ages eight and six, and her adult stepchildren, Margaret, Richard and Lucas.

How to Measure Employee Effectiveness

How to Measure Employee Effectiveness

Higher Learning - The CEO's Path to the Top: How Times Have Changed - Higher Learning - CIO

Higher Learning - The CEO's Path to the Top: How Times Have Changed - Higher Learning - CIOWhen Edward D. Breen was named chairman and CEO of scandal-plagued Tyco International in July 2002, one national magazine reasoned that he had taken on a job that would make "lesser CEOs quake in their wingtips." But Breen's footsteps to the top were not just steady; they also tracked a new pathway to the executive suite, one no longer dictated by the older, company-trained, academic-elite candidates. Breen was 46, a graduate of a non-Ivy League school and, to everyone's relief, had moved up the corporate ranks of another company entirely, never holding a job at Tyco until he was named CEO.

Unions Rally Against Personnel Reform

Unions Rally Against Personnel ReformFederal unions are pushing to defeat or severely alter the newly proposed personnel systems for the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense – rules they claim strip employee rights and destroy morale across each agency.

Fast Company | Do You See What I See?

Fast Company Do You See What I See?: "These are "the 10 Lenses." Williams introduces them in a new book: The 10 Lenses: Your Guide to Living & Working in a Multicultural World

(Capital Books, 2001). They're also at the heart of his consulting-and-education company, the Diversity Channel.

Williams proposes that through the 10 Lenses, individuals can learn more about their own cultural-belief systems. A better understanding of these systems, and those of others, can help people "build bridges, manage conflict, and find common ground." It also can help managers communicate with and respond to diverse employees and customers. Once those skills are mastered, Williams even points readers to "an 11th Lens," which, by combining the best qualities of the other 10 lenses, "can liberate us from the boundaries of those lenses and propel us toward healing ourselves, each other, and our planet.

At the very least, Williams's framework provides a constructive tool for self-analysis. We've summarized the diagnostic test behind the 10 Lenses. Click here
to take the test.

Fw: Management Intelligence: Success from failure

Management Intelligence

 

Seeing past failure to business success

Robert Heller is one of the world's best-selling authors on business management.

When Thomas Watson, the founder of IBM, observed that success lies on the far side of failure, he was preaching a double sermon. The first lesson is the need to persevere through all setbacks. The second is equally important: learn from your mistakes.

They can yield far more value than rejoicing in success. That's why another American entrepreneur, Royal D. Little, entitled his book How to Lose $100 Million and Other Useful Information. The ability to analyse one's own errors, and correct them, is an indispensable, highly instructive part of the entrepreneurial kit.

Sometimes this means making the best of what initially seems a very bad job - like the company whose brand-new product, thought certain of success, was losing money heavily, making no impact in the market and causing extreme stress and overwork. The disaster flowed from a common error: extrapolation of the past into the future.

That can prove fateful even when the future is very recent. The company had experienced strong demand in this particular market segment in the preceding months. As the new product, designed to cream off more boomtime sales, was launched, the market went dead flat. The company had been misled by looking only at its own sales.

In its resulting predicament, thorough homework, wrongly absent before, showed that of three alternatives - battling on regardless, closure, or tweaking - only the third made economic sense. By scaling down production and attacking a different market segment, first-year losses would be kept to £50,000. Breakeven next year would be followed by £100,000 profit in the third.

So it transpired. Better still, the product surged on to dominate its segment and become a highly profitable market leader. The plans could be scaled down without loss of opportunity - simply because the original segment offered none. So beware of extrapolation - and never neglect that homework.

In another, sadder case, though, efforts to recover from unwise extrapolation became self-defeating. The start-up, a service business, had expanded to the limits of its existing offices. Market conditions looked buoyant, and a move to larger premises seemed sensible. But instead of cutting overheads, by moving to a cheaper area, the company took on much bigger and dearer offices.

Recession, hitting its business and savaging the value of London offices, delivered a double whammy. The more the firm tried to cut insupportable overheads, by subletting and cutting staff, the more its business suffered. It was chasing its own tail - the same fate that's overtaken some major companies, which have become leaner and meaner, all right, but also less able to compete.

So keep the ratio of fixed costs to turnover as low as possible. The attack on overheads is easily relaxed when business is booming, and the boom is being extrapolated into the future. If the breakeven point where income covers costs rises too high, not only will profits be inadequate, but the business will be highly vulnerable to any downturn.

On the other hand, having low-cost offices over a pub, say, with tiny staff and big ambitions has dangers of its own. As in another real-life example, it encourages the proliferation of low-profit activities. This company was undertaking far too much activity at far too tiny a return. So, even though the breakeven was low, it couldn't get past the vital mark - and failed accordingly.

So always work to high gross margins. The two latter examples provide another warning. There wasn't enough room to learn from failure and proceed to its far side, success. It's hard for a small company, especially when going well, to ask what's the worse that could happen, and what must be done if the worst (as it sometimes will) comes to the worst.

That isn't the same as prudent budgeting. Time and again, boards accept budgets which look immensely prudent compared to the previous year's wonderful rise in sales and profits. But the budgeters have merely aimed off from the extrapolated past. Just as dangerous, they're still in an upside mentality, which affects decisions as well as costs.

Nobody likes to present pessimistic forecasts. But adverse future trends won't disappear for being ignored. Nor will past failures - so exploit them. After all, they've cost plenty.

Yours

Robert Heller

Get Your Complimentary Copy of The Fusion Manager:

Robert Heller's latest book The Fusion Manager offers managers a route to success through the myriad of management 'big ideas'.

Forget single-theme management solutions like Total Quality Management, Shareholder Value, the Digital Revolution and Business Process Re-engineering. The key to your future success as a manager is to embrace paradox, fusing:

* The need for both short-term and long-term profits
* Discipline and freedom
* Commercialism with humanity
* Globalism with regional marketing
* Giving customers what they want and leading them to what they want
* Increasing Shareholder Value by not trying to do so

As part of a two-month trial subscription to Letter to Thinking Managers, we will post you a complimentary copy of Robert Heller's The Fusion Manager. Take up this offer here:
http://www.thinkingmanagers.com/prewp/pwmani14a.html

You are currently subscribed to management-intelligence as dclayburn@cnidirect.net To unsubscribe go here: http://management-intelligence.thinkingmanagers.com/cgi-bin/process.pl?id=34272286Y

This email is sent by Heller Management Ltd, 7 Park Place, Wadebridge, Cornwall, pl27 7ea, United Kingdom

Dealmaking Fever Hits Retail Industry

Dealmaking Fever Hits Retail Industry

Recent Telecom Mergers

Recent Telecom Mergers

The New York Times > Carl Fiorina? He'd Probably Be Out of Work, Too

The New York Times > Business > Your Money > Carl Fiorina? He'd Probably Be Out of Work, TooHE question was bound to come up: If Carleton S. Fiorina were a man, would the outcome of her turbulent tenure as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard have been different?

Ex-CFO Warned About WorldCom Accounting

Ex-CFO Warned About WorldCom AccountingNEW YORK (AP) -- The former finance chief of WorldCom testified Wednesday he warned CEO Bernard Ebbers at a 2001 dinner meeting that accountants would have to classify expenses as assets to meet Wall Street expectations.

Fiorina Forced Out As Hewlett-Packard CEO

Fiorina Forced Out As Hewlett-Packard CEO

CareerJournal | Reach Your Career Goals By Managing Your Boss

CareerJournal | Reach Your Career Goals By Managing Your BossAre you having trouble getting your manager to buy into your ideas? You can't put your finger on the problem. All you know is you're not getting credit for what you do right and you're being overlooked for plum assignments.

If this scenario sounds familiar, the problem may be your inability to communicate with your boss on his or her terms. This is what's known as a failure to "manage up."

The CEO Refresher - The Eight Rules of Management

The CEO Refresher - The Eight Rules of ManagementThere are some managers that shell out criticism as if they were handing out candy on Halloween in a neighborhood filled with youngsters. There are some managers that would get more pleasure from pulling out their own teeth without anesthesia than by dishing out a compliment. If an employee does 95% of a project right, there are some managers that will always solely dwell on the 5% that was wrong. To these managers I say: it is time to change.

CHALLENGES IN MANAGING A FAMILY BUSINESS

When family members work together, emotions may interfere with business decisions. Conflicts may arise as relatives see the business from different perspectives. Those who are silent partners,
stockholders and directors are likely to judge capital expenditures, growth and other critical matters primarily by dollar signs. Those engaged in daily operations are more likely to be concerned about production and sales figures and personnel matters. Obviously, there is potential for conflict.