What Will First Lady Michelle Obama’s Work-Life Balance Efforts Look Like?
November 18th, 2008 | Mark Harbeke
We have heard for some time that Michelle Obama’s pet concerns on the campaign trail, which she hoped to be able to continue while in the White House – and will indeed be able to after last week’s dramatic election finish for her husband, President-Elect Barack – are helping families create a healthy work/life balance and easing the struggles for military families.
It’s no wonder the former is an issue that’s close to Mrs. Obama’s heart. This article from the UK-based Telegraph newspaper talks about her own work/life balance struggles, in three distinct phases of her life: while growing up on the South Side of Chicago and seeing an ailing father continue to work hard, and leave business matters at the office; while herself transitioning from the legal field to civic and community work after marrying Barack and having their two daughters, Malia and Sasha; and most recently while Barack was on the campaign trail.
Mrs. Obama even wrote a heartfelt essay on the topic of work/life balance last month on the popular BlogHer community of women bloggers. Here’s how she spells out the plight for working women:
As we all know, our country is in the midst of a major economic crisis. And we’re all feeling the effects. …
And folks are feeling it at the workplace. Because right now, thousands of women across the country don’t have family leave at their jobs. And those who do can’t afford to take it because it’s not paid. And 22 million working women don’t have a single paid sick day.
That’s just unacceptable. Families shouldn’t be punished because someone gets sick or has an emergency.
This is from the employee perspective, but Obama’s cause has direct implications for small and midsize business leaders. Morra Aarons-Mele, a graduate student specializing in women and leadership, framed this exceptionally well recently on The Huffington Post,
Why should we care about “work life” issues when our savings and retirement funds are literally halving by the day? Because “work life,” as nondescript as it may sound, is the stuff that keeps American families afloat. Work life refers to issues ranging from sick leave to health care to early education and child care. It also encompasses flexibility and better work-life balance, which have strong effects on companies’ bottom lines and employee productivity.
So what would organizations’ employee engagement activities geared toward helping workers achieve a more harmonious balance look like – ideally – four or eight years from now? Obama hinted at this during a plenary address she gave at our annual small business leadership conference two years ago, when she spoke about creating relationships between businesses and the community.
Community organizing didn’t just help Barack become President-Elect; it has also helped his wife use resources at her present employer, the University of Chicago (and later its Hospitals) to transcend both entities from simply a “name” in their neighborhood to a visible, tangible source of inspiration and assistance.
As we spelled out in our article summarizing her remarks at our event, Obama pointed to the creation of such initiatives as school “Principal-For-A-Day” and community fitness programs as ways to not only bring the University’s and Hospitals’ employees out in the open, but to better connect their passions to their work.
This model has been readily adopted, to great effect, by some of the firms we’ve since honored as Top Small Workplaces. For instance, 2008 winner The Redwoods Group, an insurance provider for YMCAs and Jewish Community Organizations that’s based in North Carolina, requires its 100 employees to volunteer 40 hours of service annually to nonprofits. A condition of their employment, the company argues this has contributed directly to their steady employee growth (27% over the last two years) – including the ability to recruit cost effectively – and industry-low turnover (less than 6% on average the last two years).
So one plausible – again, ideal – work/life balance scenario is the government serving an encouraging, perhaps advisory role in helping small business leaders adjust their employee engagement best practices so employees can focus their passions on helping their communities, while at the same time benefitting the organization through enhanced workplace team building and lower rates of absenteeism and presenteeism.
Do you concur? Or do you see Obama’s work/life-related efforts playing out differently?
Cross posted at Winning Workplaces
Related Posts:
Tags: 2008 election, balance, employee engagement, michelle obama, small business, work-life, work/life, workplace initiatives
November 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
What if we change one word in Mrs. Obama’s rhetorical declaration:
“Employers shouldn’t be punished because someone gets sick or has an emergency.”
So what is the principle that leads her to conclude that it is somehow more appropriate for the employer to bear the cost of the employee’s personal problem than for the employee to bear that cost? Is the principle simply that some employees don’t have the money to sustain a few days or weeks off work? If so, why isn’t the solution to encourage them to save more money for such emergencies? Or is the real principle simply that because the employer is presumed to have more money, it should pay for employees to not work when they have to deal with their personal problems?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Thanks for your comment, Sean. Turning her argument around by changing that one word — a pivotal word — is a good exercise. I personally agree with you in that employers shouldn’t be forced to bail employees out when one of those unexpected life events comes up.
At the same time, though, they do have an opportunity and even a responsibility to work on creating and sustaining a culture that energizes and nurtures employees so they get sick less often (reducing unexpected absences, and presenteeism, or trying to work through sickness or other ailments). Why is this so? Because it has an impact on medical costs incurred as part of the overall health system, and because the higher company productivity that comes with a reduction of these events helps their employees and their communities at the same time, ultimately influencing GDP at the national level.
How does this work in practice? Check out this post my coworker wrote yessterday on our blog, which talks about the health and wellness activities at one of our 2008 Top Small Workplaces, Decagon Devices in Pullman, Washington: http://tinyurl.com/6omamn
Your comment certainly serves as debate fodder from many angles. Thanks, Sean.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Sean, the above commenter, makes an interesting point, and I think Michelle Obama oversimplifies the issue by suggesting that unpaid sick days are invariably wrong.
It depends, of course, on whether or not the wages are high enough to allow the worker to save, as Sean suggests.
If the wages are high enough ONLY for subsistence, and not for saving, then the employer must step in when illness, emergency, or pregnancy (a fundamental human right) occurs. That’s only fair. And if the employer can’t make ends meet as a result, the government should step in with a safety net for that employer.
We are all at risk for illness and family emergency, so we all need to pitch in to help those who are struck.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
How about the UK model, in which employees have the right to request an FWA? Do you see something like that ever being implemented as part of an Obama administration?
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/11/10/48207/flexible-working-bouncing-back.html