在我職業(yè)生涯的前15年,我每天都要通勤到辦公室辦公。這意味著在我有了孩子之后,他們并不了解我在職場的貢獻。他們所能看見的是我缺席了她們的生活,而不是我在工作中的領導技能。我還錯過了許多事情:為了準時參加首次會議,我在她們睡醒前就離開了家門,或者太晚才回家,沒有時間聽她們講述白天的精彩經(jīng)歷。
現(xiàn)在,我每周有幾天會在家進行融資、招聘和撥打銷售電話,女兒們則在隔壁房間里寫作業(yè)或游戲,于是他們才了解到我工作的實際情況。我希望她們了解了工作及其在人生中的地位,能夠對她們未來的人生產(chǎn)生積極影響。
過去幾個月,重回辦公室運動興起,但老板們并不了解員工為什么不愿意重回辦公室。老板們表示擔心生產(chǎn)率、創(chuàng)造力、文化、進步和輔導等問題,甚至認為過去幾年的遠程辦公和混合辦公試驗反而強調(diào)了在現(xiàn)場辦公的重要性。華爾街高管史蒂文·拉特納質(zhì)疑遠程辦公的效果,并以賽富時(Salesforce)CEO馬克·貝尼奧夫、Meta CEO馬克·扎克伯格和摩根大通(JPMorgan)CEO杰米·戴蒙的說法作為理由。最近,OpenAI CEO山姆·阿爾特曼認為遠程辦公“是科技界在工作方面犯下的錯誤之一”。
但員工沒有類似的感受,這并不意外。一項最新研究顯示,員工依舊沒有獲得公司許可,按照自己的意愿遠程辦公。從舊制度中受益最大的群體,表現(xiàn)出對改變舊制度最大的焦慮,這并非巧合。但我們不應該將有權有勢的男性的感受與事實混為一談。
雖然女權運動見證了數(shù)代人的不懈努力,但事實上挑戰(zhàn)社會上性別不平等現(xiàn)象的擔子依舊落在了女性肩上。在現(xiàn)代家庭中以及在改變性別角色方面,女性依舊在努力承擔一切,盡管CEO們試圖維護過時的、適得其反的工作安排。通過重新構思工作的時間、地點甚至工作方式,我們可以朝著實現(xiàn)性別平等取得有意義的進展,解決在公司尤其是大多數(shù)高層崗位上,女性和其他不同性別人群代表性嚴重不足的問題。
我們從1940年代末以來,就沿用了相同的公司工作規(guī)范,當時許多家庭只要一份工資收入就能衣食無憂,而且只有三分之一女性在外工作。然而許多情況已經(jīng)發(fā)生了變化(上世紀60年代末,進入勞動力隊伍的女性人數(shù)創(chuàng)歷史記錄;1991年安妮塔·希爾參議院舉辦聽證會,聽證會的主要內(nèi)容是因為種族和階級、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)革命以及一場疫情的綜合影響所掀起的運動,當時的疫情導致數(shù)以百萬計的勞動者居家,但并沒有造成經(jīng)濟下滑),但我們卻被告知,唯一的工作方式是恢復與福特T型車發(fā)明同時誕生的工作方式。
靈活辦公在社會和道德上都勢在必行。靈活辦公可以幫助留住女性人才,減少職業(yè)倦怠,使養(yǎng)育子女變得更容易,并且人們可以履行看護責任。最近對混合辦公(現(xiàn)場辦公和遠程辦公)女性的調(diào)查顯示,88%的受訪者相信混合辦公的靈活性有助于實現(xiàn)工作場所的平等,有三分之二受訪者表示混合辦公對她們的職業(yè)發(fā)展路徑產(chǎn)生了積極影響。靈活辦公為不同性別的工作者提供了更多職業(yè)發(fā)展機會,增加了女性領導者的數(shù)量,這有利于公司的發(fā)展。公司的女性領導者越多,員工的積極性越高,公司盈利能力越強大。
90%的女性希望能遠程辦公,包括完全遠程辦公或混合辦公,遠程辦公提高了女性的歸屬感和心理上的安全感,而且由于與同事之間松散的時間減少,因此減少了微歧視現(xiàn)象。這在有色人種女性、LGBTQ+女性和殘疾女性當中表現(xiàn)得更加突出。支持靈活辦公和遠程辦公能力,與性別平等的關系密不可分,并且無論是女性、男性還是邊緣性別群體,都將從中受益。
主要養(yǎng)家糊口者的角色正在消失,有29%的異性夫妻收入相同,有16%的異性夫妻女性收入高于男性,但在照顧家人方面,女性投入的時間依舊比男性多2個小時,女性做家務的時間比男性多2.5個小時。無論是居家辦公還是在外工作,媽媽們依舊承擔了絕大部分照顧家人和做家務的任務,盡管這些工作依舊被嚴重低估、不受重視并且沒有得到足夠的報酬。
在同為上班族的異性夫妻中,遠程辦公可以增加媽媽的有償勞動和爸爸的家務勞動,有助于提高家庭中的性別平等。居家辦公的爸爸經(jīng)常會承擔更多家務和照顧子女的責任,他們的伴侶則更有可能找到工作,并從事更長時間的有償勞動。此外,從長遠來開,媽媽在外工作,可以令子女在經(jīng)濟和社會上受益:女兒更有可能找到工作,成為高管,獲得更高收入,而兒子會花更多時間處理家務,照顧家庭成員。
靈活辦公確實可能出現(xiàn)問題,尤其如果雇主會給現(xiàn)場辦公的員工更多加薪、升值和獲得好差事的機會,靈活辦公可能加劇薪酬和晉升方面的性別差距?!班徑云姟笔侵肝覀儠o意識地傾向于支持在物理上更靠近我們的人,這是一個陷阱,可能導致按性別和種族劃分的員工變成兩個陣營,女性和有色人種員工將成為受冷落的陣營。
在個人層面,靈活辦公并非總能給員工帶來好處。如果你每天只需要走幾步路,然后打開筆記本電腦就能開始工作,你的工作時間很可能延長,這會對身心健康產(chǎn)生負面影響,增加工作與家庭的沖突,女性在這方面的問題尤其嚴重。當你在餐桌上工作的時候,特別是如果你無法或沒有能力將子女送入育兒機構,你可能很難像在專門的工作場所中一樣保持專注。
但這些缺點值得權衡取舍。靈活辦公不成功或者導致CEO們認為靈活辦公效果不佳的真正原因是,公司并不重視旨在提高性別平等和改善工作場所的教育、實踐與政策,例如帶薪休假和輔導項目等。靈活辦公確實并非創(chuàng)建性別平等社會的唯一關鍵所在,但對于屬于最邊緣群體的上班族而言,靈活辦公是更好的選擇。
拉特納自己也承認,混合辦公和遠程辦公數(shù)據(jù)“沒有定論”。靈活辦公不應該成為上班族減少工作量的借口,而是讓他們更多地享受生活,可以更專注于工作,有更多陪伴家人的時間,更重視家人的身心健康。靈活辦公并非拒絕工作,而是拋棄一種對我們沒有好處的制度。
公司和CEO們應該負責重新打造“理想的”工作者,重視那些承擔了家務和照顧家人責任的員工,支持靈活辦公安排和政策,并提高管理者的能力,以應對靈活辦公帶來的各方面的挑戰(zhàn)。
然而,責任不止在CEO身上。所有工作者應該盡可能選擇靈活辦公,支持這種工作方式,并支持同事按照自身需要選擇工作時間和工作地點。
我們必須消除對靈活辦公的偏見,防止靈活辦公變成另外一種“媽咪軌道”,即屬于媽媽們的職業(yè)發(fā)展路徑,雖然提供靈活辦公,但卻是以犧牲職業(yè)發(fā)展為代價,更要防止靈活辦公變成另外一個版本的“女性屬于家庭”這種厭女主義者的陳詞濫調(diào)。
只要靈活辦公不會伴隨著懲罰,例如更慢的晉升速度,或者女性被貶低為“粉領族”,它就依舊是女性取得的勝利。與產(chǎn)假一樣,為了支持性別平等,以強有力的姿態(tài)支持照顧家人的價值,男性也應該可以靈活辦公,無需承擔任何后果。
三年前,靈活辦公屬于新鮮事物。兩年前,靈活辦公變成了常態(tài)?,F(xiàn)在,靈活辦公變得必不可少。我們的子女未來將要步入的職場,有賴于我們?yōu)樗_定正確的方向。(財富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者艾琳·格勞是Charter的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人兼首席運營官。Charter是一家未來工作媒體與研究公司。
Fortune.com上發(fā)表的評論文章中表達的觀點,僅代表作者本人的觀點,不能代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。
翻譯:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
在我職業(yè)生涯的前15年,我每天都要通勤到辦公室辦公。這意味著在我有了孩子之后,他們并不了解我在職場的貢獻。他們所能看見的是我缺席了她們的生活,而不是我在工作中的領導技能。我還錯過了許多事情:為了準時參加首次會議,我在她們睡醒前就離開了家門,或者太晚才回家,沒有時間聽她們講述白天的精彩經(jīng)歷。
現(xiàn)在,我每周有幾天會在家進行融資、招聘和撥打銷售電話,女兒們則在隔壁房間里寫作業(yè)或游戲,于是他們才了解到我工作的實際情況。我希望她們了解了工作及其在人生中的地位,能夠對她們未來的人生產(chǎn)生積極影響。
過去幾個月,重回辦公室運動興起,但老板們并不了解員工為什么不愿意重回辦公室。老板們表示擔心生產(chǎn)率、創(chuàng)造力、文化、進步和輔導等問題,甚至認為過去幾年的遠程辦公和混合辦公試驗反而強調(diào)了在現(xiàn)場辦公的重要性。華爾街高管史蒂文·拉特納質(zhì)疑遠程辦公的效果,并以賽富時(Salesforce)CEO馬克·貝尼奧夫、Meta CEO馬克·扎克伯格和摩根大通(JPMorgan)CEO杰米·戴蒙的說法作為理由。最近,OpenAI CEO山姆·阿爾特曼認為遠程辦公“是科技界在工作方面犯下的錯誤之一”。
但員工沒有類似的感受,這并不意外。一項最新研究顯示,員工依舊沒有獲得公司許可,按照自己的意愿遠程辦公。從舊制度中受益最大的群體,表現(xiàn)出對改變舊制度最大的焦慮,這并非巧合。但我們不應該將有權有勢的男性的感受與事實混為一談。
雖然女權運動見證了數(shù)代人的不懈努力,但事實上挑戰(zhàn)社會上性別不平等現(xiàn)象的擔子依舊落在了女性肩上。在現(xiàn)代家庭中以及在改變性別角色方面,女性依舊在努力承擔一切,盡管CEO們試圖維護過時的、適得其反的工作安排。通過重新構思工作的時間、地點甚至工作方式,我們可以朝著實現(xiàn)性別平等取得有意義的進展,解決在公司尤其是大多數(shù)高層崗位上,女性和其他不同性別人群代表性嚴重不足的問題。
我們從1940年代末以來,就沿用了相同的公司工作規(guī)范,當時許多家庭只要一份工資收入就能衣食無憂,而且只有三分之一女性在外工作。然而許多情況已經(jīng)發(fā)生了變化(上世紀60年代末,進入勞動力隊伍的女性人數(shù)創(chuàng)歷史記錄;1991年安妮塔·希爾參議院舉辦聽證會,聽證會的主要內(nèi)容是因為種族和階級、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)革命以及一場疫情的綜合影響所掀起的運動,當時的疫情導致數(shù)以百萬計的勞動者居家,但并沒有造成經(jīng)濟下滑),但我們卻被告知,唯一的工作方式是恢復與福特T型車發(fā)明同時誕生的工作方式。
靈活辦公在社會和道德上都勢在必行。靈活辦公可以幫助留住女性人才,減少職業(yè)倦怠,使養(yǎng)育子女變得更容易,并且人們可以履行看護責任。最近對混合辦公(現(xiàn)場辦公和遠程辦公)女性的調(diào)查顯示,88%的受訪者相信混合辦公的靈活性有助于實現(xiàn)工作場所的平等,有三分之二受訪者表示混合辦公對她們的職業(yè)發(fā)展路徑產(chǎn)生了積極影響。靈活辦公為不同性別的工作者提供了更多職業(yè)發(fā)展機會,增加了女性領導者的數(shù)量,這有利于公司的發(fā)展。公司的女性領導者越多,員工的積極性越高,公司盈利能力越強大。
90%的女性希望能遠程辦公,包括完全遠程辦公或混合辦公,遠程辦公提高了女性的歸屬感和心理上的安全感,而且由于與同事之間松散的時間減少,因此減少了微歧視現(xiàn)象。這在有色人種女性、LGBTQ+女性和殘疾女性當中表現(xiàn)得更加突出。支持靈活辦公和遠程辦公能力,與性別平等的關系密不可分,并且無論是女性、男性還是邊緣性別群體,都將從中受益。
主要養(yǎng)家糊口者的角色正在消失,有29%的異性夫妻收入相同,有16%的異性夫妻女性收入高于男性,但在照顧家人方面,女性投入的時間依舊比男性多2個小時,女性做家務的時間比男性多2.5個小時。無論是居家辦公還是在外工作,媽媽們依舊承擔了絕大部分照顧家人和做家務的任務,盡管這些工作依舊被嚴重低估、不受重視并且沒有得到足夠的報酬。
在同為上班族的異性夫妻中,遠程辦公可以增加媽媽的有償勞動和爸爸的家務勞動,有助于提高家庭中的性別平等。居家辦公的爸爸經(jīng)常會承擔更多家務和照顧子女的責任,他們的伴侶則更有可能找到工作,并從事更長時間的有償勞動。此外,從長遠來開,媽媽在外工作,可以令子女在經(jīng)濟和社會上受益:女兒更有可能找到工作,成為高管,獲得更高收入,而兒子會花更多時間處理家務,照顧家庭成員。
靈活辦公確實可能出現(xiàn)問題,尤其如果雇主會給現(xiàn)場辦公的員工更多加薪、升值和獲得好差事的機會,靈活辦公可能加劇薪酬和晉升方面的性別差距?!班徑云姟笔侵肝覀儠o意識地傾向于支持在物理上更靠近我們的人,這是一個陷阱,可能導致按性別和種族劃分的員工變成兩個陣營,女性和有色人種員工將成為受冷落的陣營。
在個人層面,靈活辦公并非總能給員工帶來好處。如果你每天只需要走幾步路,然后打開筆記本電腦就能開始工作,你的工作時間很可能延長,這會對身心健康產(chǎn)生負面影響,增加工作與家庭的沖突,女性在這方面的問題尤其嚴重。當你在餐桌上工作的時候,特別是如果你無法或沒有能力將子女送入育兒機構,你可能很難像在專門的工作場所中一樣保持專注。
但這些缺點值得權衡取舍。靈活辦公不成功或者導致CEO們認為靈活辦公效果不佳的真正原因是,公司并不重視旨在提高性別平等和改善工作場所的教育、實踐與政策,例如帶薪休假和輔導項目等。靈活辦公確實并非創(chuàng)建性別平等社會的唯一關鍵所在,但對于屬于最邊緣群體的上班族而言,靈活辦公是更好的選擇。
拉特納自己也承認,混合辦公和遠程辦公數(shù)據(jù)“沒有定論”。靈活辦公不應該成為上班族減少工作量的借口,而是讓他們更多地享受生活,可以更專注于工作,有更多陪伴家人的時間,更重視家人的身心健康。靈活辦公并非拒絕工作,而是拋棄一種對我們沒有好處的制度。
公司和CEO們應該負責重新打造“理想的”工作者,重視那些承擔了家務和照顧家人責任的員工,支持靈活辦公安排和政策,并提高管理者的能力,以應對靈活辦公帶來的各方面的挑戰(zhàn)。
然而,責任不止在CEO身上。所有工作者應該盡可能選擇靈活辦公,支持這種工作方式,并支持同事按照自身需要選擇工作時間和工作地點。
我們必須消除對靈活辦公的偏見,防止靈活辦公變成另外一種“媽咪軌道”,即屬于媽媽們的職業(yè)發(fā)展路徑,雖然提供靈活辦公,但卻是以犧牲職業(yè)發(fā)展為代價,更要防止靈活辦公變成另外一個版本的“女性屬于家庭”這種厭女主義者的陳詞濫調(diào)。
只要靈活辦公不會伴隨著懲罰,例如更慢的晉升速度,或者女性被貶低為“粉領族”,它就依舊是女性取得的勝利。與產(chǎn)假一樣,為了支持性別平等,以強有力的姿態(tài)支持照顧家人的價值,男性也應該可以靈活辦公,無需承擔任何后果。
三年前,靈活辦公屬于新鮮事物。兩年前,靈活辦公變成了常態(tài)?,F(xiàn)在,靈活辦公變得必不可少。我們的子女未來將要步入的職場,有賴于我們?yōu)樗_定正確的方向。(財富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者艾琳·格勞是Charter的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人兼首席運營官。Charter是一家未來工作媒體與研究公司。
Fortune.com上發(fā)表的評論文章中表達的觀點,僅代表作者本人的觀點,不能代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。
翻譯:劉進龍
審校:汪皓
For the first 15 years of my career, I commuted into an office every day. This meant that by the time I had children, my workplace contributions were invisible to them. All they noticed was my absence, not my leadership skills at work. I missed a lot, too: Some days I left the house before they woke up to make it to my first meeting, or walked in the door too late to hear the highs and lows of their days.
Now that I take fundraising, hiring, and sales calls from home a few days each week while my daughters do homework or play in the next room, they have exposure to the reality of my work. I hope the lessons they are learning about work and its place in a full life will have a positive impact on them in the years to come.
As the return-to-office movement gained steam over the past few months, bosses don’t understand why people aren’t returning to the office. They’re voicing concerns over productivity, creativity, culture, advancement, and mentoring–and even asserting that the remote and hybrid work experiment of the past few years has reinforced the critical importance of sitting in an office. Wall Street executive Steven Rattner questioned the effectiveness of remote work, relying on statements from Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon to further his argument. More recently, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman called remote work “one of the tech industry’s work mistakes.”
It’s probably not a surprise that employees don’t feel similarly–new research shows that employees still aren’t permitted to work remotely as much as they’d like. And it is hardly a coincidence that the demographic which benefited most from the old system has also expressed the most anxiety about changing it. But we shouldn’t confuse the feelings of powerful men with facts.
Despite all of the efforts of the feminist movement that have spanned generations, the reality is that it still largely falls on women to challenge gender inequities in society. Women are still trying to do it all, despite CEOs preserving work arrangements that are outdated and counterproductive when it comes to modern families and changing gender roles. By reimagining when, where, and even how we work, we can make meaningful progress toward gender equality and address the dramatic underrepresentation of women and people of all genders in our companies, particularly at the most senior levels.
We’ve been stuck in the same corporate work norms since the late 1940s when many families could live comfortably on one paycheck and just a third of women worked outside of the home. While so much else has changed (women entering the labor force in record numbers in the late 1960s; the Anita Hill Senate hearing in 1991 that centered the movement around the compounding effects of race and class, the internet revolution, a pandemic that sent millions of workers home and yet didn’t crater the economy), we are being told the only way to work is to return to a schedule invented with the Model T.
The case for flexible work has a social and moral imperative. It helps retain women, reduces burnout, and makes it easier to have children and deliver on caregiving responsibilities. According to a recent survey of female hybrid workers that combine in-office and remote work, 88% believe the flexibility of hybrid work is an equalizer in the workplace, and two-thirds say it has had a positive impact on their career growth path. Flexible work provides greater opportunities for career advancement across gender lines and increases the number of women in leadership, which is good for business. Companies with more women in leadership have more engaged workers and are more profitable.
Ninety percent of women want the ability to work remotely, including fully remote or hybrid-work options, and with it have experienced an increased sense of belonging, greater psychological safety, and, thanks to less unstructured time with colleagues, fewer microaggressions. This is even more pronounced for women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities. Support for flexibility and the ability to work remotely is inextricably tied to gender equality and benefits us all: women, men, and marginalized genders.
The primary breadwinner role is disappearing, with 29% of opposite-sex couples earning the same amount of money and women out-earning their husband in 16% of marriages, and yet, women still spend two more hours on caregiving and 2.5 more hours on housework. Whether a stay-at-home mother or one that works outside the home, mothers still take on the lion’s share of caregiving and domestic responsibilities, even though that work continues to be woefully undervalued, underappreciated, and undercompensated.
For opposite-sex couples with two wage earners, remote work supports gender equality at home by increasing a mother’s paid labor and increasing a father’s domestic labor. Fathers who work from home more frequently perform a greater share of housework and childcare, and their partners are more likely to be employed and work more hours in paid labor. There’s more: Children benefit long term economically and socially when their mother works outside of the home: daughters are more likely to be employed, be supervisors, and earn more, and sons spend more time doing chores around the house and taking care of family members.
To be sure, flexibility can go wrong, especially if employers reward the people who spend more time in the office with all of the raises, promotions, and plum assignments. In such a scenario, flexibility could inadvertently contribute to a gender gap in pay and advancement. Proximity bias, the unconscious tendency to favor those that are physically closer to us, is a real pitfall and can lead to two classes of workers that break down by gender and race, with the less favored class being women and workers of color.
At the individual level, the benefits of flexibility for employees don’t always hold. When your commute only requires you to walk a few feet and open your laptop, it’s easy to extend your work day, which can have a negative impact on well-being and increase conflict between work and family, particularly for women. Anyone who has tried to work from the middle of their kitchen table knows how challenging it can be to focus when you’re not in a dedicated workplace, especially if you can’t access or afford childcare.
But these downsides are worth the tradeoffs. The real reason flexible work arrangements haven’t worked or have led to a perception among CEOs of poorer outcomes is that companies haven’t invested in the education, practices, and policies which promote gender equity and improve their workplaces, such as paid leave and mentorship programs. Flexible work certainly isn’t the only key to a more gender-equal society but it’s a hell of a lot better for the most marginalized workers.
The data on hybrid and remote work arrangements is “at best inconclusive,” which Rattner himself concedes. Flexible work isn’t an excuse for workers to do less work, but rather for them to do more life–more focused work, more family time, and a greater focus on their well-being. It’s not a rejection of work, but a renouncement of a system that hasn’t served us well.
It’s within the power of companies and CEOs to recast the “ideal” worker, value workers who shoulder domestic and caregiving responsibilities, support flexible work arrangements and policies and equip managers to lead through the multidimensional challenges of flexible work.
However, the onus is not just on CEOs. All workers, when and where possible, can support flexible work by choosing it for themselves and empowering colleagues to work when and where they need to.
We must destigmatize flexible work and prevent it from becoming another mommy track, a career path for mothers that offers flexible work at the expense of career advancement–or even worse, another version of the tired misogynist trope “women belong in the house.”
Flexible work will continue to be a win for women as long as it doesn’t come with penalties, like slower paths to promotions or relegating women to pink-collar fields. And like parental leave, men need to take it without consequence, too, in order to support gender equity and make a powerful statement about the value of caregiving.
Three years ago, flexible work was novel. Two years ago, it was normal. Today, it’s necessary. Our future workplaces–the ones my children and yours will inherit–rely on us to get this right.
Erin Grau is the co-founder and Chief Operating Officer of Charter, a future-of-work media and research company.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.