Work Daze

You may not believe that a macho, alpha-male-type person like me would care, but I feel deeply for women who are trying to balance work and family. That’s why this he-man felt like skipping through the daffodils when I found a blog dedicated to the workplace juggler.

The address of the blogsite is WSJ.com/Juggle and its author is Sara Schaefer Muňoz, a Wall Street Journal reporter who understands how difficult it is to screw up your job and your kids, all at the same time.

A cross-section of the online ramblings of Muňoz and her readers appeared recently in the off-line pages of the newspaper, providing new insights for women about women trying to juggle family and career. [I suppose these musings are also relevant to men who are trying to juggle careers and families, but men have so many more balls to keep in the air – the NBA basketball, the NFL football, and the sparkling glitter ball at the Kit Kat Klub to name just a few.]

One problem facing some women is rising salaries. With a well-paying job may not seem like a drawback, a six-figure income makes it difficult to leave the fat checks for the full diapers. Muňoz describes a first-year associate at a large New York law firm who recently received a $15,000 salary boost to $160,000 a year. The lawyer, who was also a Mommy, admitted that the 15K bump seriously influenced her decision to stay at her job.

“While I miss my baby girl, I have to work to keep a roof over her head,” a woman in a similar situation summed up. “Not to mention pay for $15K a year preschool.”

Personally, I don’t think the lawyer has an issue. She should immediately quit her job and then sue her baby for making give up a fat paycheck. As for the woman paying 15K for 3 hours a day in the sandbox, she can achieve the same effect by dropping her kid off at the nearest high-rise building site. The hard hats will make excellent childcare supervisors and the tot will learn all sorts of exciting new words – a real advantage if the child decides on a career in construction or politics.

Another agony for the working mother is the issue of at-home child care. While Mommy is off having power-lunches in the corporate jet, baby is at home with the Nanny. If the Nanny spends her time laying on the sofa, swigging martinis, and neglects to teach the child the proper balance of gin and vermouth, the mother has a problem. But if the Nanny is Mary Poppins perfect, the careerist is equally worried.

“Every time I read your blog it makes me glad that my wife wanted to stay home,” writes a male reader. “Compared to guilt that my child might bond with a nanny, I’ll take another year driving my 1994 Toyota.”

This fear of losing the love of a child is unique to new parents. By the time your child is a teen-ager, you will wish they would bond with someone else, preferably a recruiter for the French Foreign Legion. What is left unsaid in the Juggle is the lure of the jiggle -- take it from Robin Williams and Jude Law, both of whom left significant others for insignificant others – their children’s nannies.

[I don’t know what is so attractive about the nanny to the old nanny goat, but I suspect it has less to do with the fact that the nanny is young and beautiful, and more to do with the fact that she is handy. While Mommy is on the fast track, closing deals, nanny is in the laundry room, folding diapers. And what is the lure of Chanel #5 when compared with the fatal attraction of baby powder.]

Some women decide early-on that being a stay-at-home Mom is not their forte. Like Citigroup, Inc. chairman, Sallie Krawcheck, who declared herself “really bad at it.” For Ms. Krawcheck, playing Peek-A-Boo is a snore. Lending billions to Pongo-Pongo she can do in her sleep. Other women worry about whether it is right or wrong to let their children watch television during their precious quality time together.

One anti-TV Mom brags that her child can “spend minutes on end watching a ladybug.” I wish someone would tell my boss that this is a worthy achievement. Every time I do it, I got fired.

Ever wonder what you’ll be doing at 65? If your boss has anything to say about it, you may not be watching the waves of wheelchairs roll by at Casa Siesta. According to the experts, the latest trend in retirement is to “Just say no.”

It’s true! As the first Baby Boomers hit retirement age, a strange new phenomenon is being observed – the rebellious flower children who came of age at Woodstock are now refusing to leave their button-downs unbuttoned. They’re choosing work over play, and what is even more remarkable – their companies are glad to have them.

The obvious reason the Boomers are not retiring is, well, obvious. They can’t afford it. Having grown up with a passion for expensive German sports cars and high-flying Internet stocks, the Boomers now find themselves facing their sunset years with barely enough to finance a refrigerator box by the freeway. The fact that their homes may be losing value, as well, make it even more difficult for many pre-retirees to cash out and goof off. Even their luxuriously remodeled kitchens with their combination crock-pot whirlpool spa and built-in wheat grass blenders are becoming more of a liability than an asset.

But there’s another reason why the traditional retirement scenario is undergoing a re-write. According to a recent article in BusinessWeek online, employers are facing a “shortage of workers with specific skills and talent as 77 million Baby Boomers reach retirement age and the number of seasoned professionals to replace them fall short.”

This short-fall is good news to workers of any age. If you’re just entering the job market, employers will snatch you up simply to have a warm body in a chair when the senior partners start decomposing. [If you’ve felt that certain departments are unresponsive, like HR and IT, it may not be because they don’t care. They may simply all be mummified.]

If you’re an employee whose been around so long they can count the rings on your beer belly, the good news is the end of the “the cult of the young.” Instead, the big bucks will now be going to the old bucks. Experience is the name of the hiring game these days, and it doesn’t matter whether you went to the Harvard School of Business or Herbert’s Academy of Taxidermy. If your resume is longer than your arm, some employer will pay you an arm and a leg.

Unfortunately, not every profession is anxious to recruit and retain grey hairs. Your opportunity to get a running back position with the Chicago Bears has probably not improved significantly since your last birthday, not even considering that you’ve been spiking your Metamucil with steroids. Nor has age improved your chances of dancing on stage with Justin Timberlake, though it is possible that if you continue to practice your accordion you could secure a gig with the Polka Party Rascals.

According to BusinessWeek, the five professions most in need of the senile and the restless are Government, Financial Services, Education, Health Care and Science.

Personally, I’m not sure that our government would benefit by having any more experienced hands on the tiller. At this point, I believe the only chance for improving the situation in Washington, DC is to have the government taken over by chimpanzees. They couldn’t do any worse, and they would certainly be more fun to watch.

In the science arena, the article cites a 58-year-old molecular biologist who retired from her full-time job and immediately started doing contract work from her home. This may be an excellent arrangement for scientists, but I would feel a little uncomfortable if I learned that my neighbor was experimenting with DNA in her kitchen, or cracking atoms in the garage. If your neighbor stops by to borrow a cup of plutonium and a centrifuge, it’s time to move.

As far as the other professions go, I really don’t see much harm in letting a bunch of old codgers take over our banks, schools and hospitals. Hospitals would certainly be better off if everyone was on Medicare, not just the patients. If you’re shelling out $150,000 for a toenail transplant, you don’t need the battle over who owes the co-pay.

And of course, don’t forget business humor columnists who just get better and better the older they become. I’ve been writing this column since I was 87, kiddo, and you’ll have to admit, I’m finally getting really, really close to doing this job right.

Think you work hard at your job? Think again. If all you do is put in the
standard eighty hours a week, not including your week-end labors, then,
friend, you are merely coasting. The true hard workers are another breed
altogether. You may call them dummies or masochists or kiss-ups, but
psychologists have another word for this hearty breed of obsessive
over-achievers. They call them workaholics.

A true workaholic is never not working. Whether at home, or out to dinner,
or even in church, the workaholic is on the job. Workaholics make work their
entire lives, an addiction for which modern technology like BlackBerries,
PDAs and cell phones become digital enablers.

The difference between a hard worker and a workaholic is subtle. A hard
worker may put in lots of hours at the job, but is able to leave work alone
long enough to eat, sleep and watch “American Idol.” When workaholics aren’t
working, they become so stressed out that they can actually become
physically ill. According to a recent article by Dana Mattioli in “The Wall
Street Journal,” workaholics may suffer from fatigue, sleep disorders and
stress related-aliments, including heart attack and stroke.

And that scary scenario does not even include the dangers of random attacks
by co-workers who hate the workaholic for making them look bad in the eyes
of management.

As is the case of anyone who is reading this column in the hope – however
hopeless – of improving their work life, I myself have experienced periods
of workaholism. Getting a new job or a new boss will definitely induce the
desire to prove yourself to be devoted 110% to your job. And as everyone
knows, being a workaholic is hardly a barrier to career success. Even
enlightened employers who are quick to step in to help a drug or alcohol
abuser may step back from confrontation when dealing with an employee who is
simply working himself to death.

Our goal, then, is clear. We want to appear to be workaholics in the eyes of
our bosses, but still be regular Joes and Jills to friends, family and
bartenders. Fortunately, the WSJ article gives us a good template for
workaholic behavior by listing the standard symptoms of the disease:

1. Merging work into other parts of your life

The article profiles Irv Flax, a 63-year old accountant, who is a recovering
workaholic. Flax was so obsessed with his job that accounting issues
dominated his conversation, even when he was in social situations. Luckily
for Flax, accounting is so fascinating that is completely understandable
that he could think of nothing else. Why, weighed again the calculation of
imputed interest in FIFO or LIFO scenarios, the antics of Brittney and Paris
pale in comparison.

If you toil in a less fascinating field, like a NASCAR driver, NBA player,
or Mafia chief, you’ll have to work to work in business references in your
personal life. I suggest you use the grand gesture, like standing up before
the start of a musical event to ask the performers to play softly so you can
be sure to hear your cell phone, or bringing your computer with you to your
house of worship, the better to check on sales results during non-productive
periods of prayer. [If your religious leader is in touch with a higher
power, it shouldn’t be a problem to provide WI-FI access in the pews.]

2. Neglect other aspects of life.

Workaholics are famous for not showing up for important family occasions. To
promote your workaholic status, pick a few select dates to miss and jobs to
avoid. Forget to take out the dog or pick up the children. Don’t pay the
electric bill or the company loan shark. Forgetting a wedding anniversary
will also make a big impression, especially if it’s silver or gold, and
you’ve scheduled a romantic round-the-world cruise for your spouse and
yourself. The tale of your significant other, waiting alone and helpless on
the deck of the QE2 as it sails off to Pongo-Pongo, will ensure you of
workaholic status for decades, or, at least, until the divorce is final.

3. Sneaking work

According to the article, workaholics, like other addicts, try to hide their
addictions. Secrete tiny USB flash drives in the chocolate chip ice cream.
Or let your spouse catch you in a secret rendezvous at the No-Tell Motel
with the company CFO. “I’m so disappointed,” he or she will exclaim as they
throw open the motel room door. “I had so hoped you were having an affair.”

Before you even start reading, let me tell you right at the giddy-up, this column really isn’t very good. So, if you’re expecting some inspirational, or useful, or even mildly entertaining insights into working life, you probably won’t find them here.

Still reading? That’s good, because you’re about to find yourself wildly impressed with my brilliance. It’s not because I’m brilliant, or even bright. It’s because I carefully manipulated your good judgment by an extremely useful and little-appreciated business technique – managing expectations downward.

People brought up to be positive, glass-is-half-full types do not grasp the power of downward expectations. These optimistic, over-achievers doom their best efforts by repeatedly assuring their managers of success. With their supervisors expecting them to complete every project with 110% effectiveness and efficiency, these positive stinkers find themselves walking on – and often, falling from – a career tightrope when faced with even the slightest set-back.

For the 110% crowd, a 99% success rate represents abject failure. This is never a problem for those of us who operate at about 30% of capacity. For us, successfully finishing even 50% of an assignment represents a major accomplishment.

According to a recent “Cubicle Culture” column by Jared Sandberg in “The Wall Street Journal” there are many psychological reasons to support managing expectations downward. Sandberg quotes Max Bazerman, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, on the psychological phenomena of “anchoring.”

Defined as “the tendency to overvalue an early piece of information, such as an expectation set by an employee,” anchoring psychology suggests that “later updates have significantly less influence on our view of the situation.”

In other words, if you accept every important assignment with a “Can do “attitude, it may be difficult to recalibrate expectations, even though you are immediately handed five additional even more important assignments from five even more important managers, in the process of which you also happen to get hit by a cross-town bus on your way to heart-transplant surgery.

A far better strategy, according to business psychologists, is to set your anchor in deep in the muck. “Boy, that looks really difficult,” you tell your manager. “I don’t think there’s a chance in heck that I will be able to get it done.” This way, even if you never lift a finger on the project, you’re covered. And if you do lift a finger, you’re a hero. The “Can do” person can break a finger, and still be considered a bum.

Another psychological factor that favors managing expectations downward comes from another professor at another business school – Nicholas Epley at the University of Chicago. [Don’t these professors have anything better to do than pontificate to the media? No wonder America’s top managers are so lame. Their business school professors can’t teach because they’re spending all their time trying to appear on Oprah.]

Epley’s researches lead him to the conclusion that while “breaking a promise is bad, exceeding a promise is often not worth the effort.” To which my research produces a major “Duh.” How many times have we busted our humps to get a job done, only to have the accomplishment totally ignored by our bosses. Like the time you actually arrived at work at 9 AM, or stayed until 5:05 PM. Did anyone throw rose pedals on your work station, or offer up a laurel wreath for your fevered brow? I think not.

But make some silly little mistake, like leaving a laptop full of sensitive client data on the bar at the Kit Kat Klub, or setting the boss’s new Jaguar on fire, and suddenly, you’re “irresponsible.”

Fortunately, for people like thee and me, managing expectations downward is not really a problem. Our managers expect so little from us that even the simple act of staying awake until lunchtime is considered a major accomplishment. For those of us who live and breath failure, there is no need to manage expectations. Your bosses have none.

Of course, if you still believe that a positive attitude is still is the best way to get ahead, I can only refer to my new personal hero, Harold Wolfe, a retired software engineer interviewed for the “Cubical Culture” column. In his long career, Mr. Wolfe volunteered for nothing, hesitated when asked to work overtime, and when asked how soon a job would be done, would respond, “I’ll have to think about it.”

As this wise man so wisely explained, “If you meet high expectations, they only expect more from you.”