Should Parents Get Special Privileges?

A member of the Equilibrant network wrote to me yesterday saying that her female manager within a major, quite important section of the UK government (I really want to tell you - it's that appalling - but I won't) told her that she (the manager) would "block home working for any colleagues who had children as they shouldn't be given 'privileges' just because they have a family."   


There was a time, not that long ago, where I could actually understand that point of view.  I was working my *rse off in finance, putting in 12 hour days, and actually felt hard done by every time one of my colleagues (male or female) said they were ducking out to do something with their kids.  Why should they get special treatment just because they chose to have children?  Now that I have a child of my own, of course, I am completely embarrassed to admit that.  I should point out, though, that I also secretly felt it was unfair when my male colleagues would randomly duck out to play squash during the day, which they did often.  


I can see now that I, like the government manager, was missing the point entirely.  Flexibility in working hours and venues is a privilege, to be sure, but rather than denying it to some employees, on the basis that exceptions should not be made, it should be offered to all employees.  


In my pre-kid life, would I have been pleased to be encouraged to work from home a couple of days a week?  You bet.  My company could have even saved money on physical space by having me share a desk with someone who was working from home on other days.  It doesn't matter that I didn't "need" to work from home due to family obligations - to me, it would have been a valuable perk, and one that I might have taken up if I felt confident that I would be judged on my performance, rather on the amount of face time I was putting in at the office.


The option to work flexibly is something that has been proved, time and again, to be more valuable to employees than money.  It increases retention rates and decreases sick days.  Simply put, it makes financial sense, which is something the government (particularly in its current predicament) might want to note.

Equi-WHAT?

Equilibrant. Yes, you're right, a somewhat obscure physics term is not necessarily the catchiest name. Good thing it's not required that members be able to pronounce it properly, because I have taken to stressing the "lib" rather than the "quil". The correct pronunciation, for those who care, is: 

e·quil·i·brant

   [ih-kwil-uh-bruhnt]

eQUILibrant. eQUILibrant. eQUILibrant. eQUILibrant...

Here's why I picked such a lame name:

- noun  Physics.
A counterbalancing force or system of forces. (courtesy of Dictionary.com)

I didn't actually take physics. Can you believe that? A major hole in the liberal arts curriculum that I received at one of America's top prep schools. I think I elected to take "Southern Writers" instead, which was a great course, but if I am honest, I have always regretted not taking physics.

I did study economics, though, with enthusiasm. I was a charter member of the Columbia Economics Society, I'll have you know. I think I may have been treasurer, which is, of course, the job no one wants (even in an Economics Society).

I don't think "equilibrant" exists as an economic term, but it should. It's the force that causes an equilibrium to be achieved, after all, and economics is all about achieving equilibrium, whether on a macro or a micro level. Economics says that we can find an equilibrium to most things in life, normally with reference to supply and demand.

Equilibrant, in this case, is a network (www.equilibrant.net) --  A network with the objective of enabling its members to shift their lives into equilibrium; to find a happy, stable balance between work and family. To feed their minds and their souls in equal measure. It's not about having it all, it's about having enough. That's the micro version.

The macro version is this: There is a huge labour shortage looming in the western world, due to the aging population. And yet there is a gold mine of labour resource sitting right here. Around 50% of corporate graduate trainees are women, but only 12% of executive committee members of listed UK companies are women (the numbers are very similar in most western countries outside of Scandinavia, by the way). Despite the fact that we are being educated equally with men, we are "leaking out of the pipeline" before or once we have achieved senior management level.  It doesn't take a physicist to know why that is.

Bring senior women back into the workforce on terms that work for them, and I bet the labour shortage would shrink more than a bit.  A McKinsey report entitled "Women Matter" actually puts numbers on this solution: "If the employment rate for women stays constant, Europe can expect a shortfall of 24 million people in the active workforce by 2040; if, on the other hand, the rate can be raised to the same level as for men [it is currently 21% lower than for men], then the projected shortfall drops to 3 million."*

What terms work for women? Try flexibility, for a start.  An equilibrium between supply of labour and demand for workers can be achieved, with a bit of a push. So can an equilibrium between an individual's interests in work and his or her interests in family.  That's right, equilibrium is not just for women.  

And neither is Equilibrant, no matter how you pronounce it.




* "Women Matter"  McKinsey & Company, Inc. 2007