Career prospects for women during the economy of the past couple of years show significant disillusionment. By the end of 2020, 140,000 jobs in the U.S. which had been held by women were lost in female-dominant industries like education, hospitality, and retail according to Business Insider. The National Women’s Law Center reported in 2021 that about two-thirds of all minimum wage jobs are held by women. Unemployment rates remain high for women of color and women with disabilities. 

The past years have also not been encouraging for professional women seeking to secure leadership positions, particularly in highly capitalized businesses. Julia Boorstin of CNBC reported in 2020 that of the 500 largest American companies only 6% of CEOs were women. Not only that, but there is this occurrence of women being placed in CEO positions of troubled companies struggling to hang on. The phenomenon is known as the “Glass Cliff” problem. If the ship cannot be quickly righted to profitability, then it can be easier for some to say how a woman was given a chance to show leadership, but it just did not work out. 

McKinsey reveals another stunning circumstance. The proportion of women in jobs declines as the amount of responsibility embedded within these jobs increases. Women make up 50.8% of the American population, but account for 47% of entry-level positions, 38% of management assignments, and 33% of senior management occupations. For every 100 men who move into management roles, there are 85 women who do so. 

The history of women in the workforce facing discrimination, unequal pay, and harassment in one form or another is a painfully long one. However, there are some other statistics which curiously suggest more positive changes may be coming for women in the workforce. 

The writer David French points to some recent education stats showing men are slipping in acquiring the schooling necessary to stay highly qualified and competitive for the good jobs, and for leadership roles particularly. For example, at the end of the 2020-2021 college academic year women comprised 59.5% of the overall student body, the highest ever, and men only 40.5%. This data is from the National Student Clearinghouse, a nonprofit research group. 

Furthermore, the 2020-2021 school year showed a decline of 1.5 million students relative to five years earlier. 71% of that drop was in men leaving U.S. colleges and universities! For a reason I cannot explain, men’s attendance has fallen such that they have become a minority cohort in higher education. Can a drop in men’s career prospects relative to women, including in leadership, be far behind? 

One does not have to look far to notice an unmistakable correlation between levels of education and career success. Acquisition of knowledge, skill, experience, contacts, and confidence are all derived from furthering one’s education. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent data concerning earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment show median weekly earnings for those holding only a high school diploma to be $781, but with an unemployment rate of 9%. The bachelor’s degree college graduate in comparison earns on average $1305 per week with an unemployment rate of 5.5%. 

To be sure, the traditional four-year college degree program model is under serious review, as it should be, by those who foot the high cost. More targeted and lower cost education and credentialing options are providing increasing competition to legacy college and university programs. That’s fine. But if men think the good jobs and leadership positions will always be waiting for them as in the past, while women are actively preparing to compete and hold those occupations for themselves at rates superior to males, then men may be in for a rude awakening soon. 

As women gain more of the good jobs and leadership roles, they are likely to open more doors for other women to participate more fully in quality education and work opportunities. As education attainment shifts more to women, so too will their employment and leadership strength. 

An odd convention has fixed itself into the career psyche. It involves widespread practice that when a worker has demonstrated specialized competency and efficiency over a period of time, then the next step in that person’s career must naturally be an elevation to a management position. A causation is assumed linking proficient performance with an ability to lead direct reports. 

This assumption may be oversold, resulting in the selection of many managers who find themselves unhappy and detached from what they do best. 

Surely, there are many cases when a stellar individual contributor turns out to be an excellent manager of workers who does what they once did. As managers, they know intimately the challenges their subordinates face and having been skilled in addressing them formerly they can guide teams with heightened awareness and credibility. A once knowledgeable and experienced provider, who is also an inspiring leader, is a great combination indeed. 

Unfortunately, there are times when the “advancement” of a well-versed individual contributor to management is misplaced. During these pandemic times, it is no secret that many workers are reassessing their roles. This includes managers. It is not uncommon for some managers to feel a nostalgia for work that was more purposeful and fulfilling compared to being supervisory. They remember the satisfaction they felt at being an excellent contributor, and with reflection, may realize they like that better than being a boss. 

However, we are ingrained to think hierarchal. Once we have moved up, it is considered a disgrace to move back down. What will people think if I give up this management post and return to a job I once had? That will be seen as a demotion, right?  

Thoughts like these would discourage many managers from reversing course. If the future of one’s career is a choice between continuing in a less than satisfying management role or risking possible shame by returning to a former position, then one is very likely to feel stuck. This is not a good place to be. 

One thing helping with such a conundrum is the fresh post-pandemic attitude allowing for workers to search for more meaning in their work. Just as there is now more evidence of hiring managers being more accepting of job-hopping over the past two years when they look at resumes, there may now be greater acknowledgment of managers leaving to search for greener pastures. 

Reframing your traditional ideas about hierarchy may also help. Get out ahead of any perceived criticism or doubt from others by publicly admitting that returning to a role, which again makes possible more autonomy and the practice of mastery, is a better fit for yourself than management. It is possible to state that your career and the organization can both profit from such a move. This can be communicated in a way which is both believable and face-saving. 

Leadership, as well, can be viewed with old-fashioned limitations. Management jobs need not be the only way to lead. An individual contributor who trains and mentors colleagues through sharing of expertise and proven methodologies can have a greater leadership impact than someone who is overly consumed with analyzing productivity metrics of direct reports. By claiming you prefer to lead more by guidance and coaching than the old management job allowed for, it can help to substantiate your re-entry move. 

Then there is the possibility of retaining your management position on the hierarchy by proposing a new strategic venture that better incorporates both your individual contributor and management values. From your perch within the organization, you may be able to see more creative ways of approaching potential opportunities, which call for just the right fusion of skills you can provide. 

Greater agility does not just benefit organizations, it enhances careers as well. If you are questioning your contributions due to limitations placed on you by being a manager, the time may be right for a change. 

As a people, we habitually want to return to normal after a sudden disruption. To seek stable ground after a storm is what we are hard-wired to do. The pent-up desire to reclaim regularity throughout this pandemic is palpable. We want so much to snap back to a 2019-era lifestyle that it may be hindering our capacity to plan for what increasingly looks like an uncertain future. 

A combination of Covid’s aversion to disappearing and more general workforce changes promote doubtfulness in the minds of many about future economic, and by extension, career directions. Questions as basic as, will my job be permanently home-based and remote, or will my job, which is centered on being face-to-face with many people, forever now to be risky? These are existential questions. 

Career resilience, or the ability to navigate one’s professional life through the turbulent vicissitudes of the 21st century employment environment, is not a new topic. Remaining nimble and adept enough to reapply one’s skillset to changing situations has been advised by career professionals for years now. Of course, such advice has most often been given in the context of technological automation and cross-market globalization. 

The unsettled world of Covid, however, only adds to the urgency. Emerging variants of the virus and the patchwork way nations and regions respond to the emergency leaves Covid-fatigued people feeling discouraged that we can get past this anytime soon. Optimism rises and fades like the graphs of infection rates. As far and as wide as we can see, the economy is being buffeted by winds of Covid-generated incertitude. Career resilience becomes but a subset to the larger challenging phenomenon of economic resilience. 

The National Association of Counties identifies economic resilience as, “a community’s ability to foresee, adapt to, and leverage changing conditions to their advantage”. The U.S. Department of Commerce is more blunt in its description. Commerce questions an entity’s proficiency to endure and to rally from a severe disruption, and its ability to avoid crises in the first place. The take-away inference is that acceptance of the proverbial new normal and requisite mitigation planning is to be standard operation. 

The interests of non-entrepreneurial workers are served when employees understand the sustainability planning and related past practices of the employers for whom they work or want to work. If an employer is overly relying on luck to get them through or is in denial about change occurring, these should be warning signs. Do not let the miscalculations of others derail your career. 

What we want to see instead are signs of employers envisioning and assessing risks to their markets and assets. These are sometimes known as steady-state actions. From there they should be prepared to deploy a response strategy when crisis strikes.  

Included in this overall approach can be interventions such as sustainability budget planning; diversification efforts to reduce exposure to high risk sectors; gardening of workforces which will ride out disruptions and not quickly bail; alignments with business, government, and educational resources to keep forecasting and preparedness skills sharp and ready; and agile management capable of shifting available talent to meet unexpected needs effectively. 

Continuity planning for an organization or an individual share certain processes. Key among them is to know the weak areas. Where are the shortcomings? How can they be managed or strengthened? Which metrics apply to indicate success is being achieved? 

Another key process is in knowing the threat indicators early on. Take advantage of utilizing a natural or trained inclination to be preventative and farsighted. 

Above all, establish systems, procedures, and habits, which have resiliency built into them. Facing turmoil requires a degree of fortitude. Until Covid is somehow controlled worldwide the economic and career challenges related to the virus will continue. Confronting the menace clear-eyed and purposeful is a potent response. 

An unmistakably big story in the 2021 career space has been about what is being dubbed “The Great Resignation” or “Turnover Tsunami”. Of course, I am referring to the throngs of workers in both the relatively high paying knowledge economy, but also in the lower income sectors, like hospitality and retail, who are leaving or not returning to their pre-pandemic fields of employment. 

A whopping 40% of the global workforce has left or is planning to leave jobs this year. The U.S. Labor Department has never seen such an acute spike in resignations in the twenty plus years it has been tracking such statistics. 

The popular media has for months now been pumping out pieces referring to the phenomenon and the suspected reasons behind it, such as higher savings rates thanks to government financial assistance, fear of catching the virus at work, insufficient childcare options for working parents, and a growing realization that a lot of hiring is now going on.  

However, the monumental reason for this employment churn appears to be a dignity factor. The Covid pandemic is allowing for a massive reassessment, and by extension, a realignment of what truly matters in one’s work and life. 

Shelter-in-place directives, social distancing, and closed office buildings, restaurants, and stores shook people’s mindsets in numerous ways. Many front-line “essential” workers who were heralded as heroes early in the pandemic are now either burnt out or tired of the abuse they get, like healthcare workers. Many well compensated workers ensconced in jobs pertaining to information flows and the means of production are bailing from positions because of the stress levels and long hours. Those on the low socioeconomic end feel abused, disrespected, and exploited and are not going to take it anymore. The number of workers and the type of worker taking the employment shift plunge are both expanding. 

This spectacle is causing economic hardships for a range of stakeholders from business owners to customers. The flux in employment is helping to fuel in part the larger pandemic-related worldwide economic convulsion. Shouldn’t we all be really concerned about this dramatic and disruptive turn of events?  

Yes, we should be, but not of fear for the interests of the wealth holders becoming suddenly inconvenienced, but in support of workers who are all in different sounding ways and from different points of view collectively saying they want and expect fair compensation, respect, and a voice in how their careers are going to develop. This brief period in history may be seen as a possible inflection point in the 21st century morphing of work and career into something different from the way it has been in the past. 

I come back to the three intrinsic motivators for professional workers eloquently described by Daniel Pink about ten years ago. Pink wrote and spoke about the need and quest for autonomy, mastery, and purpose as to what gets successful and satisfied workers out of bed in the morning. We are more motivated and driven to perform well at our jobs when we feel we have relatively free rein to innovate and produce, when we feel we are developing a skill or talent, and when we feel that what we are doing at work matters in a value sense. 

It seems to me that what many of these job searchers are looking for comes very close to what Pink is describing. Combine dignified levels of compensation with workplace cultures that honor worker autonomy, mastery, and purpose and a job can become more satisfying and sustainable. 

I get that some just want a decent job and not a career, but what makes an employee want to stay and thrive is fundamentally not very different between a highly educated contributor and an hourly employee. Dignity and respect can go a long way. 

Merit denotes goodness. It is a word synonymous with excellence, value, and quality. We strive to live meritorious lives, because to do so brings happiness to others and distinction to ourselves. When society thrives, it does so largely due to the actions and contributions of people displaying merit. 

There is no hotly contested debate about the virtue of merit. It is generally thought to be a desired attribute, particularly among employees. What boss would not want to have positive, reliable, and worthwhile workers on her team? And yet, another term derived from the word merit, meritocracy, seems to be under fire. 

Broadly speaking, meritocracy refers to an institutionalizing of talent, ability, and skill which when present and operational results in optimally run organizations, whether in business, government, or the nonprofit sector. Compensation and power are steered toward those individuals who best demonstrate the desired traits of a meritocracy such as intelligence, valued credentials, and solid performance. 

I always thought meritocracy was an affirmative construct, so I have been surprised to see that meritocracy has now become, counter-intuitively for me at least, a controversial concept. To see why, I decided to examine what the dispute is all about. 

Examples of meritocratic administration are historic reaching back millennia. More recently though, it turns out the word meritocracy was originally coined and used derogatorily in 1958 by a British politician who was criticizing the British education system as overly favoring student intelligence and aptitude above other characteristics, leading to elitism. 

It was not until 1972 when Harvard sociologist Daniel Bell put a positive spin on the term by championing a combination of intelligence and energy as ideologically desirable. Today, there are many proponents and critics of meritocratic systems. Their divergent views seem to rest on differences in how one determines what is fair in an organization or institution. 

For example, Jim Whitehurst, who is now president of IBM, is bullish on meritocracy. He sees only advantage in strongly rewarding the best people with the best ideas. Establishing a culture that encourages listening and sharing and where every associate can contribute makes it easier for management to discern which inspirations result in high end gains over time. By enabling leaders to spot emerging talent and to position this ability where they can create the greatest value, followed by generous compensation for the quality influencers, is the hallmark of a highly functioning meritocracy. Keeping associates engaged and identifying in-house leadership makes for a stronger organization. 

A recent significant criticism of meritocracy was released in 2019 in the form of a book, The Meritocracy Trap by Yale law professor Daniel Markovits. He sees meritocracy as “a pretense, constructed to rationalize an unjust distribution of advantage.” According to Markovits, meritocracy has two profound liabilities — it is often an unfair system that benefits those of a certain traditional type of leadership, say white males over women or minorities, and that those seen as meritorious find their lives consumed by competition and long hours devoted to the company. Hence, the trap. In practice, not all talent really percolates to the top and if one is “lucky” enough to be among the chosen, then one’s life becomes less than satisfying. 

So, does meritocracy need reform? It depends on how “fair” is defined within an organization that purports to practice it. The style of meritocracy described by Whitehurst sounds fair to me, if and only if, the culture is truly open to high quality ideas no matter who puts them forth and that selection of those with desired aptitudes are chosen for their skills and abilities alone and not for extraneous considerations. And Markovits’ point about exploitation of expertise is also in need of monitoring, primarily by those whose careers and lifestyles are most affected. 

One thing advocates and critics alike can agree on is that merit is a virtue to be promoted and defended. We all benefit when it is. 

When I drive my E-ZPass-less car through the tollbooth on I93 in Hooksett, NH, I intentionally swing to the right to hand a dollar to the tollbooth attendant. When checking out from a shopping trip in a big box store, I prefer paying a person at a cash register rather than using the self-serve payment scan system. 

It is not that I am some sort of crotchety Luddite who shuns digital progress. I pride myself on maintaining some decent level of technical functionality as I age. But I have come to question why those who design and build our Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are obsessed with things like automation. In fact, the more I investigate AI the more surprised I am that AI is being utilized so narrowly, unevenly, and menacingly. 

The AI movement is powerful, significant, and potentially authoritative regarding how our personal and work lives will be lived in the coming years. The scale of its reach places it in a class far beyond the technological tinkering improvements we generally see with new phone models or app developments. Machine learning is far more enigmatic than a better video camera or gaming platform. 

Momentous changes are likely in a broad range of fields from mechanics to medicine and are expected to reshape work and modify markets. Many of these transformations will be welcomed, perhaps cherished, but others perhaps should not happen at all. 

When looking at AI today it seems too much of it is focused on building systems that either automate functions, collect data, or conduct surveillance. This should be concerning. The likelihood of jobs being lost, governments and companies holding vast quantities of our personal information, and our personal freedoms becoming threatened is not some far-fetched paranoid delusion, but an ugly scenario we should work to prevent. 

There is progress and then there is degeneration. AI could give us either or both. As an analog, I think of my attitude ten to fifteen years ago about social media. Then, the crowdsourcing of unregulated input from the global community augured richer and more transparent conversations about any number of topics. Or so I thought. Today social media looks like a cesspool of disinformation and disgruntlement ushering in social breakdown. Not all innovations should be welcomed. 

In our democracy, while we still have one, the general public needs to be actively engaged in monitoring the AI powers that we have and weighing in on policies to determine what AI engineers develop. Living with a laissez-faire attitude of, ‘Well, whatever the markets come up with will be fine. Markets know best.’, can lead to costly and offensive ruptures in the very framework of society. Citizens should insist that AI be deployed in a generally advantageous manner as described by utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham — “the greatest amount of good for the greatest number”. 

Instead, it looks like AI development is being driven more by the acquisition of corporate profit and power than by what benefits society. One does not need be a wild-eyed Socialist to question whether a disruption as encompassing as AI could potentially pose hazards to society. Those who control the development and deployment of AI will have a lot of authority and say in how our economy operates and how our future day-to-day lives are experienced. Concentrations of power have traditionally been held suspect in America. Well, we have one in the making. Let’s pay attention. 

The ultimate direction AI takes does not have to be decided solely by engineers and corporate C-levels who find business in selling only surveillance and automation tools. AI could be targeted to complement and improve the work done by real people, while also creating new activities and opportunities that keep workers gainfully employed. We have a choice — let AI rule us or we rule it. Hopefully, we will choose wisely. 

Increasingly, we see workers wanting to aim their careers in the direction of green pursuits and sustainability. Many careers are being chosen to align one’s environment-friendly values with their need to earn a living. Jobs ranging from LEED building inspections to ecotourism to aquatic biology and much more are under consideration. What is rarely considered by the environmentally conscious job seeker is a career in manufacturing. 

Manufacturing gets a bad rap among the green crowd. Although we all heavily rely on the diverse range of products yielded by the sector, it is nevertheless often viewed as unclean and a source of resource depletion. The 20th century image of soot-stained smoke belching factories beside lagoons of toxic waste still clings to many minds. Choosing work between an industrial plant and say a green initiative nonprofit is a no-brainer for the ecologically inclined. 

But wait! There may be reasons to look at the modern manufacturing sector as harboring some initiatives that could make even the most devoted tree hugger stop and slowly nod in the affirmative. 

Gradually, we see evidence of manufacturers attempting what is known as a circular business model. This approach seeks to establish supply chains that involve recycling and recovery of constituent materials used in the making of products. If the circle is really tight, supply chains swirl themselves into a continuous loop, whereby new raw materials are rarely needed in the reproduction of products. 

Imagine knowing that once the usefulness of a manufactured product has expired it can be returned to the industry from whence it came, rather than a landfill, and be reused or repurposed into future products. Sounds pretty green, doesn’t it?  

Beyond the PR-positive social responsibility and environmental gains of instituting green practices, there are other economic benefits for the manufacturer by going circular. These include reducing production waste and utilizing raw materials more efficiently, both of which are cost saving activities. 

Implementing a circular business model can involve up to three strategies, according to operational experts Atalay Atasu, Céline Dumas, and Luk Van Wassenhove. They identify the following as practical schemes manufacturers can apply to adopt a circular model. 

The first is known as Retain Product Ownership. Typically, this involves leasing rather than selling products. Once the product is past its usefulness it goes back to the manufacturer for reprocessing. This approach may work best for products with a lot of components and complexity, and which can be transported back to the manufacturer relatively easily. 

Another direction may be in Product Life Extension. Here products are made more durable and longer lasting than the competition. Gaining a consumer reputation as a quality enduring product makes premium pricing more justifiable and builds consumer loyalty. Throw in easy exchange policies for worn or defective products and people take notice. 

There is also the intentional Design for Recycling action plan. Designing and creating products built to be fully recycled ensures the eventual reuse of products or at least their elemental parts. It is surprising we do not see more of this in general manufacturing now. To have an infrastructure that efficiently captures reusable products that are made to be recycled would be a very exciting development in manufacturing, indeed. 

To be sure, management may have to get creative with how to weigh these different approaches to reduce both costs and their environmental impact. What is most important is for the manufacturer to see that value can be reclaimed from their products. With value comes profits. Re-energizing product value time and time again at lower costs may make good business sense. 

So, when searching for “green” lines of work consider whether these circular business model techniques align with your eco-consciousness. You may find manufacturing is the place where you can best express your environmental principles. 

I am pleased to present a Guest Article from Leslie Campos of Well Parents. For more information about this wellness resource targeted for parents please visit https://wellparents.com.

High school and college students can’t wait to launch into a career and start gaining real-world experience. However, when graduation nears and it’s time to start applying for jobs, most students don’t know where to start. Before the job search begins, students should take these steps to get their professional life started off right. Below, we explore some ideas that can help you start off your own career planning on the right foot.

Building Strong Credentials

New graduates lack work experience to put on their resume, but that doesn’t mean they lack experience. Without career positions to highlight, recent graduates should focus on internships, apprenticeships, volunteer experience, and extracurricular activities to demonstrate their relevant experience.

Listing roles isn’t enough. Applicants should highlight skills and accomplishments from each role, focusing on skills that are related to the job they are applying for. Many of these will be soft skills, but that’s not a bad thing. Employers can always train an entry-level employee in the technical skills they need for a job, but instilling soft skills like communication, conflict resolution, and leadership is much harder.

To further hone your capabilities, an advanced education might fit the bill. Programs like WGU’s market-responsive online business program brings relevant, real-world knowledge to the table, and you can even flex the course load to suit your needs. Explore your options to find industry-relevant, practical programming that will give you the advantages you need.

Networking

Outside of developing their resume, networking is the most important thing students can do to set themselves up for a successful career after graduation. Networking with professors, campus staff, fellow students, and alumni is a good start, but students should also look beyond their school’s walls for networking opportunities.

Internships are ideal networking opportunities for students. An internship is a way to develop hard skills needed on the job, but more importantly it’s a chance to meet potential employers, learn about career paths in a field, and gain strong references for a future career search. Naviance recommends college students pursue internships as early in their college career as possible rather than waiting until senior year.

Crafting a Strong Resume

Skills and a strong network alone won’t land recent graduates in their career of choice. Entry-level workers also need strong application materials that appeal to today’s hiring managers. A strong resume is partly about content, but design is equally important. A resume and cover letter that are visually appealing and free of errors demonstrate an applicant is diligent and detail-oriented, skills every employer wants in their staff. At the same time, students should be wary of sacrificing professionalism for the sake of design. For first-time job-seekers, premade resume templates are an essential tool for creating a resume that balances good design with a professional appearance.

While filling in a resume template, applicants should be sure to include keywords from the job posting they’re applying for. Many companies use electronic applicant screening systems to find resumes with keywords that pertain to the job. Monster explains how to select keywords along with other resume tips for recent grads.

Pursuing Non-Traditional Career Paths

Pursuing a college degree and a white collar career isn’t the only path to economic success. Many recent graduates find they are better suited for entrepreneurship or a career in the trades.

Entrepreneurship is a challenging route for people without real-world experience to build off of, but many recent graduates are finding success in starting online businesses such as ecommerce businesses based in dropshipping. These types of businesses require much less start-up capital than traditional brick-and-mortar businesses, making them more accessible to young people with limited financial resources. As long as entrepreneurs can deliver unique value to customers and build a strong website with good customer service, they can find success in online business.

The trades are another field in high demand. High school students can enter the trades without a four-year college degree and earn an income comparable to their college-educated peers. As NPR reports, trades such as construction and plumbing are experiencing labor shortages in much of the US, so students interested in this path face little trouble finding opportunities.

The transition from student to professional isn’t an easy one. The shift is made even harder when students don’t know the right way to land the job they want. While these tips can’t guarantee students will land the entry-level position they’re aiming for, they’re the necessary first steps toward a successful career.

Image via Unsplash

The knowledge economy office workplace got a sudden shake-up over the past year plus. At its peak, not that long ago, the pre-vaccinated office-based workforce (March 2020-March 2021) was functioning more from home than from the traditional office, approximately ten times more so than pre-pandemic rates. According to the University of Chicago, as recently as March 2021, 45% of work services were still being performed in home environments. 

This begs the question, is office work going to snap back to the way it was with workers committing to long hours away from family spent in bustling office buildings arrived at via thick commuting traffic? And if so, why? 

Whether or not the Covid pandemic has unwittingly ushered in a paradigm shift in how work is dispensed over the long term is yet to be determined. It will certainly be one of the interesting trends to observe over the next few years. At present, a look at some of the currently available, albeit sparse, indicators seem to show some degree of change in how work operations are conducted. And they may be with us for the foreseeable future. 

It is fair to assume most management desire a return to normal times, during which management practices they were accustomed to can be resumed. If there is to be a more permanent realignment to include more flexibility such as remote work activity it probably will not willingly come from supervisors. To dust off that old business expression from the 20th century, it will come from the rank and file. 

A Microsoft WorkLab report from earlier this year reveals some pertinent findings. Nearly three quarters of employees wish for an option to work remotely. Although remote work has its downsides, enough workers have experienced that productivity can still be maintained by way of technological means in a comfortable environment with less stress and less exhaustion. Demand for a more permanent flexible, distributive, blended, or hybrid production model has arisen among office employees, according to this report. 

Older Gen Z and younger Millennials form a cohort that may be informative here. Living and working from devices is second nature to them. It is reasonable to expect the momentum for more flexibility will come from them. If their resumes and LinkedIn profiles start showing more quantifiable accomplishments derived from working remotely, they will be communicating not only that they can do it, but that they want to be hired for positions honoring such skills. Balancing productivity with wellbeing in the modern era will only grow as a necessary calibration and younger workers are likely to show the way in the context of adaptable workstyles. 

Business need not be driven into this transformation kicking and screaming. Signs are emerging among C-levels showing a recognition of the likely changes to come. A Work Trend Index survey conducted by Edelman Data & Intelligence discloses that 66% of business leaders are contemplating refashioning office space to allow for more flexibility.  

Reasons are twofold. As implied earlier, the workforce appears to be increasingly desirable of workplace flexibility. This could likely become an incentive for luring needed talent not wanting to be bound by traditional institutional rules. 

Additionally, business is identifying some benefits as a result of the Covid-induced remote working experiment in terms of lower overhead, as reported by NPR, and increased productivity, as claimed by Harvard Business Review. 

It is likely multiple variations on a hybrid model will become established moving forward that incorporates combinations of conventional office-centric requirements with increased distributive or remote work options for employees.  

Although no one could have reasonably predicted that a congruence of modern communication technologies with a global pandemic would steer this trend, the result could ultimately be a boon for workers and their bosses. Let us hope employers give such changes serious consideration. 

Here it is, the year 2021 and gender discrimination is still, unbelievably, an unresolved issue in far too many workplaces. Despite attention being drawn to the issue for nearly fifty years there still exists a fundamental unfairness in how women are treated in employment environments that are either directly dominated by male senior management or at least influenced by the attitude, mindsets, and practices of traditional leadership. 

Although women make up about 50% of the workforce, they still experience discrimination in several significant areas. These include unequal compensation, a dearth of organizational upward mobility, a paucity of key decision making power, and sexual harassment.  

These are profound work culture deficiencies and injustices. The time is now to eradicate these stubborn blemishes from our workplaces. Such defects are not only ethically unrighteous, but they depress productive potential heretofore unrealized from among half of the workforce. 

It is not as if there have not been attempts to remediate workplace gender inequities. Many senior management teams acknowledge the historic existence of male-oriented favoritism and sexism embedded in their workplaces and others. This recognition has been acted upon with initiatives to make their businesses and organizations fairer and more equitable. 

Yet the problem persists. Instances of gender discrimination continue to be documented and contested within management offices, HR departments, and law firms, resulting in deployments of considerable resources for a seemingly unending management of the consequences of bad behavior. 

Elisabeth Kelan of the University of Essex in the UK has been researching gender equity issues for over twenty years. She has determined that there is widespread agreement gender inequity is prevalent overall, but interestingly these same individuals will not admit to such incidents occurring in their own specific workplaces. 

Why is this so? Dr. Kelan sees several reasons for this. To begin with, many see discrimination as the fault of their competitors or of other companies, but not of their own more virtuous workplaces. Secondly, there is a belief the issue was worse in the past, but is largely being resolved, affirming that all the mitigation efforts made thus far have worked to reduce it to a minor issue. Finally, there are those who do not fully appreciate gender equity as a big deal and if it occurs at all it is not their fault. 

If we accept Dr. Kelan’s findings as authentic it begs the question, “What are people thinking?!” What I think they are thinking is what has always been thought. At levels great and small men see themselves as better leaders, sharper decision makers, keener managers, stronger deal makers, and superior competitors. And let’s face it, there are some traditionalist women who think these roles are more masculine in nature as well. 

Even if one sees the data and intellectually accepts gender discrimination as a problem it does not automatically follow that requisite behavior changes will occur. When I reflect on my own past, I see pertinent examples. I have long believed that gender equity in the workplace was a quality worth pursuing. It is a no-brainer. 

However, have there been instances where I was more inclined to accept a fellow male’s opinion over a female’s during a meeting, or thought a woman colleague was too sensitive and not tough enough, or paid more attention to a woman’s looks rather than listening to her thoughts? Embarrassingly, the answer is yes. It is these small, but meaningful actions that keep us from achieving progress in accepting women as full and equal partners at work. 

Anti-bias training programs and the like may make some difference in altering operational behaviors, but greater progress may result from each of us looking more deeply into how we interact with each other beyond surface manners. Clarifying the personal values that motivate our behavior patterns may reveal more to us individually and strengthen needed improvements than any mission statement or management protocol might. The time is now to end gender discrimination.