blogs.vault.com/ Wed, 05 June 2013 10:12:00 Wed, 05 June 2013 10:12:00 Piyali Syam /blog/workplace-issues/why-does-the-us-hate-vacation-time/#detailed_comment Thinking about going to Europe for your next vacation? You may want to consider moving there instead. Permanently. Might we suggest Austria? The Center for Economic and Policy Research recently published a new report titled “No-Vacation Nation Revisited,” a follow-up to its first report on the subject of vacation time in the U.S. as compared to other developed nations published in 2007. The findings? The U.S. is the single most anti-vacation nation out of all the richest and developed countries in the world (rounding out the bottom three were Japan and Canada, which both still did better than the U.S. but only legally required employers to provide 10 days of paid vacation time), being the only one to not legally mandate paid vacation time for all its employees. What’s more is that apparently absolutely nothing has changed in the six years since the first report came out. The United States of America is just as stingy as ever when it comes to doling out paid leave. Better in Europe The U.S.’s woeful no-pay-for-vacay policy stands in stark contrast to the more progressive (and presumably more relaxed) countries in Europe, where the European Union mandates its member nations to provide workers with a minimum of 20 paid days off in a year. While it’s true that vacation time is not mandated by law, a little over three quarters of U.S. workers, 77%, are offered paid time off through their companies. But if you’re like 23% of workers in the U.S., you get no paid time off at all. The average employee in the U.S. receives 10 paid days of vacation time per year and six paid holidays. Still, this combined number lags far behind European nations such as the UK, which mandates 28 paid days off, Spain, with 30 paid days and 12 holidays, Scandinavian nations Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, which require 25 paid vacation days, France, with 30 days off and one holiday, Germany, with 20-24 vacation days and up to 13 holidays and Greece, with four weeks and six holidays. The most generous country was Austria, which rewards its employees with 22 paid vacation days and 13 paid holidays. And the cherry on top? Workers in Austria, Greece, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark get paid to go on vacation. Seriously. In addition to yearly salaries, companies in Austria even provide “13th month pay” to help defray expenses of a month’s worth of vacation, while Belgium and Denmark also provide vacation bonuses. Vacation Inequality Making matters worse in the U.S. is the widening of the gap that occurs between lower-wage and higher-paid workers not just in pay but in paid time off. Less than half of part-time employees, 40%, receive paid vacation and 35% receive paid holidays. About half of the lowest-earning bottom quarter of workers receive paid vacation, while 90% of the top quarter of higher-earners do, meaning those who are most in need of paid time off don’t receive it. Use it or Lose it It’s not just employers who limit vacation time their workers can use. Due to anxieties over a shaky economy and thin job market, heavy workload before and after a vacation and fears of employer disapproval, many employees themselves choose to limit their own time and don’t take full advantage of the days they have accrued, leaving some of their days unused. Those who do go on vacation find themselves hard-pressed to relax, often spending their vacation with a piña colada in one hand and their work Blackberry in the other. This loss is the employer’s gain, with employees leaving $34.3 million worth of vacation time unused each year.  Paradox of Productivity So why is the U.S. (with the exception of Democratic Florida Representative Alan Grayson, who has been working on getting a bill passed that would mandate that workers at employers with over 100 employees receive one week of yearly paid time off) so reluctant to increase vacation time? The paradox of productivity is that while “work more produce more” may seem like a good idea in theory, the reality is that workers get burned out. The more an employee works consistently without breaks, after a certain point his or her productivity will taper off. Allowing more days off—minus the stress of losing a paycheck—is actually more likely to boost productivity rather than hinder it. The Importance of Vacations Vacations are about more than being lazy. Adequate time off from work is essential to mental, emotional and physical well-being. The rejuvenating effects of leisure time can counteract the negative impact of prolonged anxiety and stress on the body and even cut the risk of heart attack by as much as 30% for men and 50% for women. Not to mention the value vacation time has in cultivating intangible experiences that are necessary to a well-rounded life, including spending quality time with family, traveling, nurturing hobbies, interests and identities outside of work and generally stopping to smell the roses. Should the United States as a country slow down the rat race, loosen corporate reins on workers and relax its focus on the bottom line, or is the dogged focus on work helping us stay on top? What do you think, Vault readers? /blog/workplace-issues/why-does-the-us-hate-vacation-time/ /blog/workplace-issues/why-does-the-us-hate-vacation-time/ Wed, 05 June 2013 10:12:00 /blog/workplace-issues/how-citi-bike-could-change-your-life-at-work/#detailed_comment There is a lot to dislike about Citi Bike, New York City’s new bike-sharing system.  First of all, there are five Citi logos plastered onto each Citi Bike. This means, once all 10,000 Citi Bikes are in circulation, there will be 50,000 new Citi logos clogging the streets of New York. Citi, which paid $41 million to fund the program, could very easily have put just one of its logos on each bike. Or, better yet, could've left the logos off of the bikes and just put a few of its logos on the docking stations. The result would've been a more tasteful, less intrusive, subtler advertising campaign. Speaking of docking stations, the City of New York could certainly have done a better job of informing residents where the Citi Bike stations would be placed. There've been several complaints by New Yorkers who say the city didn’t let them know ahead of time about the placement of the docking stations, where the bikes can be rented. As a result, entrances to co-op buildings and places of businesses have been obstructed, parking spaces have disappeared, and blocks marked as historical landmarks now have large, ugly, gray structures taking up much of their beautiful scenery. There is also the bike itself. Weighing in at a hefty forty-two-and-a-half pounds (more than double what a typical commuter bike weighs), a Citi Bike is not the most maneuverable of two-wheel vehicles. Nor is it the best looking. The bike has been called, at best, “dorky” by some cyclists who’ve taken one for a test ride. Meanwhile, other test riders, due to the build of the bicycles, have referred to the program as “Sissy Bike.” However, despite its flaws, there is also a lot to like about Citi Bike. And much of what to like about it has to do with how the program could impact New Yorkers' lives at work. Imagine this scenario: It’s mid-September, a beautiful seventy-one degrees with little humidity, and you and two colleagues have an afternoon meeting across town. You could a) Take a cab and risk being locked in crosstown traffic for nineteen minutes and thus arriving late, b) Take the crosstown 7, then transfer to the 1, missing out on the beautiful day while traveling underground, or c) All ride Citi Bikes to your meeting, getting there on time while enjoying the perfect New York late-summer day, not to mention getting in a little exercise, which might clear your heads before your meeting. Or, imagine being able to have lunch at that new Midtown burger place you’ve been wanting to try, because it will now take you just ten minutes one way on a Citi Bike, whereas previously it would’ve taken you twenty via subway, meaning you’d never make it there and back with a full stomach of grass-fed beef in under an hour. Or, say you’re working into the evening at your office in Midtown, you want to meet friends downtown, and you want to get there before that pretty awesome happy hour special ends at 7 p.m. Of course, there's pretty much zero chance of you making it if you take a cab due to rush-hour traffic. And the thought of going underground to take the subway after you’ve been indoors all day sounds nearly unbearable. And so what you do instead is take a Citi Bike, avoiding the packed subway platform and cars, and arrive in time for not one but two specials. Or, say you just want to get in some outdoor exercise during your lunch break. Instead of staying in one place on the stationery bike for forty minutes while an A/C vent blows ice-cold air onto the top of your head, you ride a Citi Bike up and down Hudson River Park, the afternoon sun and (relatively) fresh air on your head and shoulders. Other scenarios I can imagine arising where you might want to take a Citi Bike in lieu of other transportation options while at work include: a doctor's appointment (you could save time and money by traveling by bike instead of train and taxi), running an errand (reaching destinations like a grocery store or barber shop that might otherwise take too long to walk or train to), or looking for another job (who knows, mentioning that you Citi Biked over to an interview could get your meeting off to a more informal, casual, conversational tone, which might just improve your chances of getting the job). All that said, Citi Bike isn't free, and if you don't have an annual membership, which costs $95, the cost for a single ride will set you back $9.95. There's also the question of time. Even with an annual membership, you can only use a Citi Bike for forty-five minutes at a time (it's sort of like having an unlimited monthly MetroCard; you can ride the subway as much as you want during 30 days, but you have to wait a certain number of minutes in between uses). Which brings me to this scenario: I can imagine a time in the not-so-distant future where, along with MetroCard, Long Island Railroad, and MetroNorth discounts, New York City employers also offer their employees Citi Bike discounts. Or, better, yet, free memberships. Follow me @vaultfinance . Read More:  Bike Share Gets Rolling Across City (WSJ) Out for a First Spin: City’s Bike Share Program Begins (NYT) /blog/workplace-issues/how-citi-bike-could-change-your-life-at-work/ /blog/workplace-issues/how-citi-bike-could-change-your-life-at-work/ Thu, 30 May 2013 09:04:00 Piyali Syam /blog/workplace-issues/can-good-lawyers-be-good-parents/#detailed_comment Are rainmaking and homemaking compatible endeavors or unlikely bedfellows? Approximately a quarter of the respondents (26%) of Vault’s first ever Working Parent Survey  worked in law, and voiced their opinions on and experiences with hot-button topics relevant to working parents, including employer parental leave policies, flex-time, on-site child services, stay-at-home parenting, how accommodating their workplaces are to the needs of raising a family and if they would recommend their employers to potential employees with or starting families. The responses paint a conflicting picture; though much progress has been made towards allowing lawyers to be parents as well, there is still a ways to go, with changes needing to be made from the simplest levels of individual attitudes to the most complicated structural issues inherent within the legal industry itself. Maternity Leave and On-Site Services The first order of business for mothers-to-be is how much leeway they have in taking time off before and after birth to care for their newborns. More than 75% of respondents who were mothers worked at firms which provided maternity leaves of over 10 weeks: 34% worked at firms offering 10-12 weeks paid leave and 44% worked at firms with over 12 weeks paid leave. About four weeks of paternity leave was typically granted to fathers (or other “secondary caregivers"). More than half of mothers also took advantage of additional unpaid time off, with 63% taking more than 12 weeks unpaid in addition to their paid maternity leave. While many new mothers were satisfied with the amount of time offered to them post-baby, others felt the time was inadequate and needed to supplement their maternity leave with vacation and sick days and short-term disability leave: “The maternity leave policy is not consistent with the type of benefits that should be given for such a demanding job in such a lucrative law firm. The paid benefits should extend further than 12 weeks to allow attorneys the time that they need so that they can return refreshed and ready.” “Maternity leave is 18 weeks paid, then you can tack on vacation time until it runs out, then you can use unpaid time for a total of six months. Law firm maternity leaves are the most generous I've ever heard of.” Returning from maternity leave comes with its own set of challenges, however, as new mothers (and fathers) require certain accommodations for themselves and their children. On-site child care services, lactation rooms (or curtains and locks for private offices in lieu of these facilities), day care or nanny service arrangements do much to ease new parents’ minds at work, but less than half of respondents who identified as mothers (45%) were offered these amenities. Tellingly, nearly all those mothers who were offered these services used them.  The Fine Line between Family and Success Perhaps the greatest challenge new parents face upon returning to work is attempting the delicate balancing act of meeting both work and family needs. Options like telecommuting and flex-time, which 83% of new mother respondents’ employers offered and 68% took advantage of, allow mothers the freedom to choose where and how they put in their hours, whether in or out of the office, while still being able to make it home for dinner. However, this sort of flexibility doesn’t come without its challenges in a field like law, with demanding clients, unpredictable schedules, hectic deadlines and long hours requirements that need to be met one way or the other. “Assuming work is completed for clients and you are electronically accessible, when and where you complete work is often flexible. [It is] completely normal to leave early or arrive late to accommodate parent-teacher conferences or soccer games.”  “Law firms, no matter how accommodating, are not ideal for mothers of young children. The almighty billable hour puts extreme pressure on mothers to minimize use of flex-time, part-time is impractical for practicing lawyers even if it is offered, and even though you can take ‘time off’ to deal with childcare issues, attend school events and the like, that time must be made up somehow—at night, on weekends, or during ‘working’ vacations.” While official policies may encourage taking full advantage of these sorts of accommodations, survey takers reported facing unspoken pressure that doing so would hurt their career success. Women on part-time schedules have less chance of making partner, for instance, while their full-time peers can cruise more comfortably into the corner office. Some women, in fact, hesitated to have children at all for fear of preemptively derailing their careers; many men sensed that taking full advantage of paternity leave would be frowned upon by their superiors. “Large law firms in general are a horrible place for women who want families to advance. This is totally unfair in the sense that women are often fantastic lawyers; however, the constraints on their time reduce their ability to become a partner, etc. It is a structural problem that the legal industry needs to address.”  “…the reality of practicing law (and being successful) makes being a working parent very challenging. I have traded career success for flexibility—I think that's a perfectly acceptable trade off but I have to swallow my pride a lot. :)” “After I had my first child, I went part-time, but the firm was supportive of that in name only. Going part-time was career suicide and I was almost instantly written off because of it. After my second child, I decided to stay home because I wanted to be a part of my children's lives and the female partners at my former firm seemed to have sacrificed that for their careers. It was my experience and observation that we can't have it all.” To Stay at Home or Not? The struggles of balancing work and family begs the question, what if respondents could just leave it all behind? Respondents were divided when it came to making the choice to be a stay-at-home parent vs. a working one. For some, the choice was easy; they found too much personal fulfillment in their work to consider full-time parenting. However, others felt torn between whether their limited supply of “face-time” was better spent at work or at home with their children. The struggle was about more than time; even the six-figure salary of an associate at a top law firm isn’t always enough for a sole breadwinner to meet financial demands such as high costs of living, student loans, and supporting a family, and others worried about the difficulty of reentering the work force after taking time off. The most popular answer? What women really wanted were greater part-time options, to better allow them to achieve that elusive balance between work and life. “I am a better parent because I work outside the home. I enjoy my work and the intellectual outlet it provides.” “I would love to be a stay at home parent, especially during these early years of my kids' lives, but it's not an option for me because of my financial obligations, particularly student loans.” “If I could pay off my mortgage or win the lottery, I would choose to stay at home part-time.” Working Parents ≠ Working Mothers One thing survey respondents agreed on, regardless of gender or family status, was that traditional attitudes towards men and women’s roles in the family need to change to reflect modern circumstances and realities before any lasting progress toward equality for women with families in the workplace can be made. Increased paternity leave and flex-time for men as well as women were commonly suggested policy changes which would be welcomed by both sexes. “While we have some wonderful accommodations, the attitude of senior management about working parents is pretty pathetic. Too many men in senior management who have stay-at-home wives who just don't ‘get it.’” “An enormous part of the problem is that families are seen as a woman's concern… Most of my male friends (ages in the 20s/30s) would prefer to be both good parents and good workers, and I think these things are not mutually exclusive.” “Kids are expected to be the mom's main responsibility. That expectation works better for me, as I'm the mom, but for my co-workers who are dads, it's a lot harder...it's more socially acceptable for me (versus a male colleague) to come in late because of a child's school event.” “The attitude toward men who want to take time off after the birth of a child is terrible. This hurts men, women, the employer, the clients, and really society at large. Until men feel just as comfortable as women do taking advantage of flex-time and accommodations for working parents, nothing will really change.” /blog/workplace-issues/can-good-lawyers-be-good-parents/ /blog/workplace-issues/can-good-lawyers-be-good-parents/ Tue, 21 May 2013 18:50:00 /blog/workplace-issues/how-to-win-career-advice-from-soccers-greatest-manager/#detailed_comment It's a mark of how much times and interests have changed that news of the retirement of Sir Alex Ferguson from the manager's job at Manchester United made it into mainstream U.S. media last week. At the start of his managerial career, Ferguson leaving a job would barely have created a stir in the neighboring town in his native Scotland, while the American audience for his version of "football" barely registered on the scale. But after a managerial career spanning more than three decades—and with 27 years under his belt at Man U alone—Ferguson leaves the soccer world a much-changed place. Widely touted as the greatest manager ever, Ferguson built United into one of the most recognizable names in world sport, earning a tremendous haul of championships—and a knighthood—along the way (not to mention the club's $3.5 billion valuation). As he steps down, then—the act itself a rarity in an industry notorious for the short tenure of its coaches (and the accompanying trigger-happiness of boards)—it's the perfect opportunity to glean a few lessons from his career.   Failure isn't optional… As anyone who has participated in sport at any level will tell you, "you can't win them all." And, despite Ferguson's long history of success, there have been periods of his career that were marked by repeated failure. Indeed, any discussion of his career usually includes an account of the early years at United—a period of four years where his teams notably failed to win any of the competitions they entered. While that may sound unremarkable, it's an unusually long period for a manager of an elite soccer team to survive without tangible success.   …but it doesn't have to define you The usual telling of the tale of "Fergie's" early years at United involves a nod towards the board and their willingness to believe in Ferguson. However, it seems equally likely that, despite his "failures," Ferguson continued to earn that faith by proving that, despite the lack of championships and trophies, the club as a whole were making progress and getting closer to their goal.   Planning is the key to longevity One of the hallmarks of Ferguson's career has been his willingness to recruit and develop young players. While he is credited with bringing through a golden generation of young players at United—one that unleashed the talents of a certain Mr. Beckham, among others, on an unsuspecting world—Ferguson didn't wait to be offered the platform of one of the world's biggest clubs to put his ideas into action. In his previous managerial post—at Aberdeen, in Scotland—Ferguson displayed a similar willingness to acquire and mold young players, and to develop programs and systems that benefited the club in the long term. Those practices, and the success they brought him with Aberdeen, were surely what helped him to stand out as a candidate for the bigger job.*   Adaptation is the key to survival In the time since Ferguson took over at Manchester United, "football" has become almost unrecognizable. The problems with hooliganism that blighted the British game in the 1980's have all but been eradicated, players in Europe gained the right to move freely between clubs in the 1990s (a ruling that revolutionized the transfer market), and the game has caught on as a global industry, with more money flowing through it than ever before. Long gone, then, are the days when Ferguson had to go from door to door in Glasgow in the 1970s, beseeching locals to attend the coming weekend's fixture as a means of topping up his budget for players and expenses. But all through the period, Ferguson has proven the ability to adapt, both as a tactician and as a leader of an organization that has grown from a regional force to a global superpower under his management. As he told soccer journalist Philippe Auclair in a recent interview , that longevity has been the key to mastering the different elements of his job, even as it continued to change:  "When I first came, the club was not as big as it is now, so, therefore, I’ve integrated many things over the years. I seem to be able to cope because of everything that’s brought me to this point—to the point it becomes normal." Make time to think With everything that surrounds a leadership position, one of the most important things that any manager can do is to carve out the time and space for solitude and reflection—a process that better enables them to see issues clearly and make good decisions. While Ferguson has undoubtedly made some mistakes over the years, he has long believed in the importance of solitude--a point he also made in his interview with Philippe Auclair: "What I do—the reason why I have survived—is that I’m able to get to that state of ... vacuum, where I can dismiss everything. You understand? What people say to me becomes peripheral, because I believe I, and everyone else, need 'thinking time,' that escapism which enables you to think. If you don’t have that time to think, the whole day will catch up with you." Know when to quit While Ferguson will still be involved in some capacity at Manchester United, his decision to leave now and help to bed in a successor smacks of the kind of long-term planning that he has been practicing for most of career. While he could undoubtedly have remained in the job for a few more years, there are several challenges at the club that are best undertaken by the person who will be responsible for watching them come to fruition. With that in mind—plus the fact that Ferguson has completed his personal goal of making United the most successful team in the history of the English league—this seems to be a perfect time to walk away and end his career on a high note.   * Full disclosure: as a boy growing up in Scotland, the nucleus of the squad that Ferguson left behind at Aberdeen were my first love. Unfortunately (for me), fate has not been as kind to the team he left behind as the one he joined! Image credit: melis / Shutterstock.com /blog/workplace-issues/how-to-win-career-advice-from-soccers-greatest-manager/ /blog/workplace-issues/how-to-win-career-advice-from-soccers-greatest-manager/ Tue, 14 May 2013 09:10:00 Cathy Vandewater /blog/workplace-issues/3-things-millennials-know-about-success-that-you-dont/#detailed_comment Poor Millennials. It's bad enough that they're struggling with little job experience in a tough job market, but we're all beating them up for even trying. Those whippersnappers, we snipe, they think they're entitled to a job? They want feedback? They want to be paid for what they know how to do? But they probably learned it on the internet! That's hardly viable resource for learning! Still, you've got to hand it to them: Gen Y (usually defined as those individuals born between 1980 and 2000) are a pretty aware generation. They've lived their whole lives surrounded by information technology, and if they come off as self obsessed, know it all twits, well, it may simply be because they've got the tools to indulge in it. (Joel Stein notes in his Time magazine piece that in the 1960s everybody "trapped" friends at their homes to look at hundreds of vacation polaroids. Imagine if they'd had instagram!). When all's said and done, Millennials may be better adjusted to today's work world than anyone else. Here's what they know they you might not: 1. The Importance of Branding Like stargazing, there's nothing like a little internet browsing to make you feel small. You always knew vaguely that there's always going to be somebody better at the things you do out there—but in internet culture, you're consistently exposed to "the other" and the "more": more attractive, creative, engaging, charming, accomplished, etc. Now imaging you've lived your whole life exposed to the rest of the world this way, and you'll understand Millennials' obsession with uniqueness a little better. Rather than try to beat out others in the achievement sense, young people are trying to look inward and use what's already unique to them to get noticed—whether they're looking for more hits on a blog or trying to find a job. Now that the job market is flooded with more experienced, more accomplished people than you, the Millennial approach may be a shrewd one: if you can't beat out the competition, you can at least vie for a memorable impression. Gimmicks are usually a bad idea here (you are trying to be seen as a professional, after all), but tapping into what's already special about you is a great way to authentically stand out. 2. Ask and you shall receive A little entitlement goes a long way. Many of us bemoan Millennial perceived claim to jobs, then promotions, and of course, positive reinforcement all along the way. Entitlement may be the attitude, and it may be due to "participation trophy" culture. But whatever the cause, the effect is clear: Millennials are getting at least some of what they're asking for, and that translates to much more than the rest of us (who are too scared to ask for anything). Even Stein writes in his Time piece about prominent executives who have puzzled over the fact that they gave an hour of their time to meet with young people, simply because they had asked for the time. You may turn your nose up at the boldness of asking, but you can't argue with the results. Making a simple, clear request (whether it's for an informational interview, feedback, a recommendation) has a much, much better shot at getting an affirmative response than no request at all. 3. Fit is everything A lot of people are calling it "delayed adolescence" or simple indecisiveness. But, given the wealth of knowledge young people have about the world and their career options in it, plus a great life expectancy, can anyone blame them for putting off major life choices? Millennials are big on finding their "niche." As Stein writes, the internet under their influence is a "90%" positive place, in comparison to the 50/50 positive-negative split it was under Gen X's rule. The reason? There's no longer an "us" and "them" in youth culture; in fact, there's really no "subculture" at all, since there's such a huge number and variety of cultures one can dip into and out of at will. And now, thanks to the internet (and specifically, YouTube), young people know what's out there. Why bother rebelling against one type of culture when you could instead opt to be a part of another thing that suits you better? What this all comes down to is that Millennials don't want to settle: because of the wealth of variety they're experiencing in every aspect of their lives (art, music, political opinions) they truly believe that the place they'll spend most of their time in adult life, work, can be a perfect fit for them. Also, there really is no easy path to follow anymore anyway. The days of "Doctor vs. Lawyer" no longer exist. In an unsteady job market, a clear career path no longer exists. Millennials feel that their best shot at success may truly be in finding the best fit for their particular mix of personality and skills. And, if their branding successes are any proof, they may be onto something. --Cathy Vandewater, Vault.com Read More: Stop Multitasking, Start Working Why Women Struggle With Networking: Lessons from NAPW Star Jones: "Simple Seven" Tips for Success Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation ( Time magazine (subscription required)) /blog/workplace-issues/3-things-millennials-know-about-success-that-you-dont/ /blog/workplace-issues/3-things-millennials-know-about-success-that-you-dont/ Mon, 13 May 2013 14:52:00 /blog/workplace-issues/results-from-vaults-working-parent-survey/#detailed_comment Can women have it all? Do women want it all? What do women have to sacrifice to have it all? If women could do it all over again, would they stay at home after having children? Stay at their jobs? Work less? More? Are working mothers happy with their employers? Ticked off at them? If so, why? And what can and should employers do differently to accommodate working mothers?   These are just a few of the questions Vault aimed to address last month when surveying more than 1,000 professionals in our first ever Working Parent Survey. In April, Vault asked professionals a variety of questions on working parent-related workplace topics, including paid and unpaid maternity leave, on-site child care, flex-time options, and health insurance. As for the survey’s demographics, of the women who took our survey (we also surveyed men and plan to publish those results in a few weeks), a majority are married or partnered. Respondents vary in age from their early 20s to over 60, with the bulk of participants in their 30s, and working in full-time positions in the accounting, consulting, and law industries; a smaller percentage work in education, technology, health care, and other sectors.  As for the mothers who took our survey, 84 percent have one or two children; 1 percent have more than five.   As for the findings of our survey, 40 percent of the respondents told us that their firms offer at least 10 weeks of paid maternity leave, while more than 20 percent say they’re offered no paid leave. Which, if you’re a working mother or plan to be, should be very disconcerting. In addition, many respondents told us that being a stay-at-home mother isn’t even an option due to finances. Even so, many admit that a stay-at-home mother isn’t something they want to be (see below for some of the reasons why not).   With respect to services that employers offer mothers, flex-time options seem to be very prevalent (and much appreciated), while on-site child care is less prevalent. As for which industries are the most accommodating to working mothers, accounting comes out on top according to survey respondents (the Big 4 accounting firms are well known for their generous maternity leaves), while the law and consulting industries (in which professionals typically work many hours and/or travel often) are said to be the least accommodating. We were also told that the best big city for working mothers is Washington, D.C., while New York is the worst. Below you’ll find additional findings from the survey. (Note that those questions beginning with an asterisk are followed solely by the answers of mothers who took our survey; all other questions include answer data for all women—mothers and non-mothers).   SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS Marital status: Married: 78% Single:13% Separated/Divorced:9% Widowed: 1% Age: 22-24: 2% 25-29: 13% 30-34: 26% 35-39: 24% 40-44: 17% 45-49: 7% 50-59: 9% 60+: 1% Employment status Full time: 83% Part time: 14% Unemployed: 2% Retired: <1% In which industry do you work? Law: 26% Accounting: 14% Consulting: 10% Education: 8% Banking/Finance: 5% Healthcare: 5% Human Resources: 5% Technology: 5% Nonprofit: 3% *How many children do you have? One: 40% Two: 44% Three: 12% Four: 3% Five+: 1%   SURVEY FINDINGS How much PAID maternity leave does your firm offer? None: 21% 1 to 3 weeks: 5% 4 to 6 weeks: 19% 7 to 9 weeks: 8% 10 to 12 weeks: 24% > 12 weeks: 22% How much UNPAID maternity leave does your firm offer? None: 10% 1 to 3 weeks: 4% 4 to 6 weeks: 10% 7 to 9 weeks: 3% 10 to 12 weeks: 32% > 12 weeks: 41% Rate the following benefits offered by your employer on a scale of 1 to 10:  Flex-time options: 7.69 Health insurance: 6.97 Maternity leave: 6.80 Paternity leave: 5.51 Maternity leave … … at my firm is amazing. They offer six weeks full pay, plus you can use your 22 days of vacation on top of state disability benefits. … is 18 weeks paid, and I know people have taken more time, but at that point it’s more like a leave of absence. … is short-term disability (medical). There’s no paid time off for taking care of a child. … is considered under our short-term disability policy, and that’s why it’s paid time off. Paternity and adoption are not considered a disability or medical leave and thus don’t qualify for paid time off. … is eight weeks on top of what the state provides for disability (which for me was six weeks). So I got 14 weeks paid. I was able to take up to six months off and maintain health benefits. And I could have taken more time off without benefits. Paternity leave is three weeks. Does your employer offer on-site child care? No: 66% Yes: 29% Don’t know: 4% *Have you ever left your career to become a stay-at-home mom?  No: 78% Yes: 22% Would you consider leaving your career to become a stay-at-home mom? No: 46% Yes: 36% Not sure: 18% *Being a stay-at-home mom … … provides short-term benefits in terms of saving on child care and being with your child, but has tremendous long-term negative consequences, essentially permanently derailing your career. … is more difficult than my current job. … would be great, but in these economic times is a luxury. You either have to have a super-successful spouse, or be committed to reducing any and all luxuries from your budget. … is not an option since I’m the main breadwinner in my family. … would have been nice when my son was younger, but that wasn’t a financial option for me, and it still isn’t. However, now that my son is older and starting middle school next year, there isn't much of a point in being a stay-at-home mom. … was a great experience. I was at home with my daughter for the first 16 months of her life. … was wonderful. But I was ready to go back to work after a year. Does your employer offer flex-time options? Yes: 73% No: 23% Don’t know: 4% Do you take advantage of your firm’s flex-time options? Mothers who answered yes: 80% Non-mothers who answered yes: 52% My employer … … provides more parenting benefits than I could ever have imagined. … is probably one of the more generous ones in terms of maternity leave and job flexibility, but advertising is very stressful, and I found that I missed out on a lot of my first child's development after I went back to work after 12 weeks. … is very liberal with parental leave, but single, childless employees usually get the worst working hours and last choice of vacation. … doesn't show any appreciation for employees with children. I hardly spend my time with my son because I don't want to lose my job. … plays the politically correct game, saying all the right things, but at the end of the day your reward depends on making a tremendous sacrifice, or gaming the system. If you're not willing to do that, your career will suffer. … offers decent policies compared to other American companies, but compared to where they should be, they’re horrid. On a scale of 1 to 10, how accommodating is your employer of working mothers? (Women based in) Washington, D.C.: 7.44 Chicago: 7.38 Los Angeles: 7.06 Boston: 7.05 San Francisco: 6.50 New York: 5.96 On a scale of 1 to 10, how accommodating is your employer of working mothers? (Women who work in) Accounting: 7.66 Finance & Banking: 6.96 Education: 6.758 Law: 6.45 Consulting: 6.44 *Mothers and Big Law … As far as Big Law firms go, my firm does as good as any to accoommodate working mothers. Unfortunately, Big Law and being a parent are a tough combination due to client demands. … After I came back from maternity leave, I left my firm. Working as an associate while having a young child wasn't possible. I could either be a good employee or a good parent, not both. There were simply not enough hours in the day. Working as an in-house lawyer has proven to be much better. … My husband’s a stay-at-home dad. I don't have the temperment to be a stay-at-home mom, but our current arrangement works well for us, especially given my hectic schedule as a deal lawyer. … Finding a position as an attorney that will allow part-time work is very difficult. Most firms don't seem to offer this type of arrangement. So I feel very fortunate to have found a firm that's flexible. … Paid maternity leave is 18 weeks, then you can tack on vacation time until it runs out, and then you can use unpaid time—for a total of six months. Law firm maternity leaves are the most generous I've ever heard of. *Consulting and mothering … Traditionally, consulting is not a good career choice for young families. It may require extensive travel, and some still believe you must “live” with your clients in order to bill for your time. However, there are some consulting firms out there that are successfully breaking this norm. Their consultants only travel as needed and are able to work from home. … I love my work, and I love that I’m able to do it with two young kids. Most consulting companies are not like this one. … I would not recommend my previous employer in banking; women there who had kids were either fired or seriously sidelined. But my current role in consulting gives me incredible flexibility outside of the travel required. This is a special arrangement, though, and is an exception. … Success in consulting with children at home can be achieved, but it’s not without its downside. The reality is that client demands will impede on personal time, and there are no real "set" hours. … Overall, my company is very good about letting everyone balance their work and personal lives. However, consulting is very demanding on time, so it's a challenge to stay responsible and productive within the time constraints of work and family schedules. Would you recommend your employer to working mothers? Yes: 72% No: 28% A previous version of this post did not include the fact that the Working Parent Survey also surveyed men, and that we plan to publish those results in a few weeks. Follow me on Twitter:  @vaultfinance . Read More: Can Sheryl Sandberg Break Up the Old Boys' Club? At Big 4, Men More Satisfied Than Women Can Marissa Mayer "Have It All"? /blog/workplace-issues/results-from-vaults-working-parent-survey/ /blog/workplace-issues/results-from-vaults-working-parent-survey/ Thu, 09 May 2013 17:55:00 /blog/workplace-issues/stop-multitasking-start-working/#detailed_comment A few years back, one of the resume buzz phrases du jour involved describing yourself with some variation of the following: "good/great/strong/effective multitasker ." It had all the hallmarks of a great catchphrase—it sounded fresh and exciting, it conveyed a sense of its user as someone with their finger on the pulse, it had very few negative connotations, and it seemed to cover a lot of ground without actually saying anything at all. (Really: it can just as easily mean "capable of drinking coffee while reading the newspaper" as "juggles multiple projects effectively.") As the years have progressed, however, there is evidence to suggest that claiming proficiency in multitasking may no longer be of benefit to jobseekers, or even viewed as a benign catchall for someone fresh out of legitimate achievements to list under their most recent job title. In fact, rather than painting a picture of the candidate as a hard-working go-getter who's always in control, usage of the term may well be coming to have the opposite effect.   Negative Connotations A single day last week saw two pieces appear in fairly mainstream U.S. publications— The New York Times and Slate —that deal with the negative side of multitasking. First, the Times reported on a study of what happens to people's productivity and ability to complete tasks correctly when faced with distractions. In a straight comparison of tasks completed by a non-interrupted control group and two groups who were interrupted twice while completing the task, the "interrupted groups answered correctly 20 percent less often than members of the control group"—a finding that indicates a significant loss of brain power due to "multitasking."  That was supported by observations made by researchers whose work was covered in the Slate piece. For that study, researchers observed middle school, high school and college students as they studied for 15 minutes. What the researchers found: thanks to distractions such as instant messaging, TV, music and the like, "[b]y the time the 15 minutes were up, [students] had spent only about 65 percent of the observation period actually doing their schoolwork." For employers, that has to be something of a concern—these students, remember, are the workers of tomorrow. According to Slate : "Attending to multiple streams of information and entertainment while studying, doing homework, or even sitting in class has become common behavior among young people—so common that many of them rarely write a paper or complete a problem set any other way. But evidence from psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience suggests that when students multitask while doing schoolwork, their learning is far spottier and shallower than if the work had their full attention. They understand and remember less, and they have greater difficulty transferring their learning to new contexts. So detrimental is this practice that some researchers are proposing that a new prerequisite for academic and even professional success—the new  marshmallow test  of self-discipline—is the ability to resist a blinking inbox or a buzzing phone."   Distractions: The New Deadlines? Before we all go rushing to throw out our smartphones and track down a manual typewriter, it should be noted that the study in the Times piece found that there may be one positive takeaway from our tendency to decrease in performance when distracted. In a follow-up that repeated the exercise from the first experiment, one of the groups that had previously been interrupted were told that they would be interrupted again. They were, however, left uninterrupted to complete the task, but effectively in a state of "On High Alert." The result: that group outperformed every other group, including the never-interrupted control group—a result that, as the Times put it, suggests that it may be possible "to train yourself for distractions, even if you don’t know when they’ll hit." Even that piece of the research—which the article notes requires further investigation—doesn't get the concept of multitasking out of the doghouse. Rather, it suggests that the key to staying on task is to train yourself to work with the threat of interruption hanging over you—a situation that might be more accurately described as focused solo-tasking, and which doesn't seem to be much different in theory than the kind of focus required to meet strict deadlines. With all of that in mind, the potential cost of describing yourself as a multitasker starts to seem a little higher than it did a few years ago. While there will undoubtedly still be many people who are convinced that they can switch from one half-completed task to another with little to no loss of productivity, there is a growing amount of evidence to suggest that, at best, people are using the word incorrectly—try "strong project management skills" instead—or, at worst, they're incapable of focusing on the task at hand. If that latter association with the word becomes more common, suddenly it starts looking more like a hindrance than evidence that you'd be a great employee—which means it's probably time to retire it from your repertoire.   Read More: The New York Times: Brain, Interrupted Slate: You'll Never Learn! /blog/workplace-issues/stop-multitasking-start-working/ /blog/workplace-issues/stop-multitasking-start-working/ Tue, 07 May 2013 12:28:00 /blog/workplace-issues/dimon-blankfein-or-gorman-which-ceo-sounds-most-like-a-ceo-1/#detailed_comment Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal cited a new study showing that the way you talk—your pitch, tone, and vocal tics—strongly influences how others see you. For example, if you have a quiet voice, you're seen as weak; if your tone is high-pitched, immature; and if you ... um, like, uh ... stumble over words, not so smart. In fact, the study shows that your " voice matters twice as much as the content of the message," and that "a strong, smooth voice can enhance your chances of rising to CEO." Which means that perhaps  your voice, and not your skill, is stifling your career. However, if you do suffer from a poor speaking voice (the Journal accurately points out that most people with a poor voice don't know it, so to know for sure if you're vocally challenged you'll have to ask honest colleagues, friends, or family) I wouldn't run out and pay for voice lessons just yet. Not all CEOs, not even the wealthiest, are blessed with a deep, steady, commanding voice. To that end, below are three video clips of some of the most prominent cheif executive officers on Wall Street, along with a brief discussion of each respective voice. After you watch each clip, I invite you to decide for yourself which CEO sounds most like a CEO. 1. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO Don't be fooled by Blankfein's new handsome, salt and pepper beard. His is not a voice you want to immitate at all times. In the video below, Goldman's chief seems to be straining to lower his high-pitched voice, not to mention he doesn't seem all that comfortable in his own skin (or, at least, not that comfortable to be reading from cue cards). Also note that Blankfein's Brooklyn accent (he was born and bred in the borough) creeps into his sentences every once in a while, and I can't imagine a Brooklyn accent ("fugheddaboutit") tests all that well in the study cited by the Journal . However, what does help Blankefin is that he has extremely white teeth.   2. Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO Often considered the most charismatic Wall Street chief, Dimon isn't without his vocal issues. Note that in the below clip he stammers over words several times, and he seems to try to distract his listeners by employing wild hand gestures while he speaks. Still, Dimon's voice does possess a nice pitch and volume, and he sure knows how to stifle a belch in mid-sentence (at 4:39 in the clip).   3. James Gorman, Morgan Stanley CEO If you didn't know that Gorman comes from the land Down Under, you might, at first listen to the clip below, think Morgan Stanley's chief is British. That is, his Australian accent doesn't sound to my ears to be all that obvious (then again, I often mistake Aussies for Kiwis, and Kiwis for Brits, so perhaps your ears are better tuned). In any case, Gorman, perhaps due to that accent, gives the illusion that he's a highly intelligent, serious man whom you want on your team and perhaps want to lead you through a recession. However, don't break out that checkbook so fast. When Gorman begins to get heated up a bit (especially from 3:13 to 3:20, which I recommend playing again and again for full effect) his voice rises to an unpleasantly high pitch, and the gentlemanly tone is tossed out the window.   Now, once you've finished watching the clips and decided which CEO sounds most like a CEO (and perhaps whose voice you'd like to mimic if you're so inclined to rise to the Wall Street C-suite), I invite you to do this: watch all three clips again, this time with the volume off, and decide which CEO most looks  like a CEO. Follow me on Twitter:  @vaultfinance . Read More: Is This How You Really Talk? (WSJ) Interview Tips From the 2013 Oscar Speeches Interview Like a Two-Term President Obama's Advice to Would-be CEOs /blog/workplace-issues/dimon-blankfein-or-gorman-which-ceo-sounds-most-like-a-ceo-1/ /blog/workplace-issues/dimon-blankfein-or-gorman-which-ceo-sounds-most-like-a-ceo-1/ Thu, 25 April 2013 06:50:00 Cathy Vandewater /blog/workplace-issues/how-to-save-a-bad-first-day/#detailed_comment Get off to a bumpy start? First, watch this video : it will help put your minor disaster into perspective. Then, reflect a little with these questions: 1. Was it really that bad? Sometimes we forget we're not actually walking around with a spotlight on us. What you feel was a majorly conspicuous flub maybe have slipped by everybody else. And if not, it's quite possible they noticed, and forgot. Before over-correcting, try objectively asking yourself if it's worth fretting over. 2. What impression did I make—and how would I like to appear instead? Sometimes, more than avoiding mistakes, it's the recovery that employers look for. Let's say you made a slip up like AJ and cursed: what's the poor impression here? Lack of professionalism maybe? Immaturity or unreliability? Seeming a little too tightly wound? Sometimes, better than addressing an issue at length (AJ's quick Twitter acknowledgement was perfectly short and sweet), you should simply move on and try to showcase your good behavior going forward. Be professional, on the ball; and if you made the mistake of looking a little crass or angry, extra friendly and forgiving--to yourself as well as others. 3. Can I laugh about this? Sometimes the best strategy for moving on from an embarrassing incident is to address it, but minimize it too. The easiest way to do that is with humor. Take a little jab at yourself (AJ made a comment about "tripping" right out of the gate), or joke that you've purposefully lowered everyone's expectations for your second day. A little humor shows self awareness (you know you messed up, and you're owning it), but also confidence: you're sure you can still be taken seriously, so you're not agonizing over a flub. 4. Do I owe someone an apology? Sleep on this one. If you report for your second day and still sense some weirdness, don't be afraid to reach out with an apology. A straightforward, sincere acknowledgement of a misstep and desire to correct it could be just the thing to smooth things over. It might even help you form better bonds with your new coworkers than if you hadn't messed up! Remember, nobody's expecting perfection all the time. A graceful recovery can show much more about your character and ethic than a flawless first day can. So stay positive! Got a first day coming up and hoping not to embarrass yourself? Here's a few safeguards: 1. Sleep and eat enough You'll need to be alert and well fed (bring snacks in case you can't get away from your desk) to keep up. 2. Take notes Be as self-sufficient as possible—you're new, but no one's going to want to hand hold you. Carry a small notebook around as you get situated and jot notes about what you're learning. It may save you from annoying your new colleagues. 3. Ask questions if you really need to Don't guess, if it's important. But do be short and sweet in asking. Your coworkers and boss will appreciate your dedication to both accuracy and brevity. 4. Don't try to run the show Natural leader? Cool. But sit down and clam up for your first few days. You've got a lot to learn and you won't be able to if you're too busy showing (or mouthing) off. 5. Be observant Not making a fool of yourself is hugely dependent on picking up on the subtle cues around you. Watch people: they've been at the office longer than you and have figured out how to make their way around their jobs through trial and error. Note their dress, how they approach colleagues, how they ask questions (and whether they ask questions first, or only after trying to figure things out alone), and perhaps most importantly, how they recover from snafus. You never know when you'll need that information. --Cathy Vandewater, Vault.com Read More: AJ Clemente, Local Anchor, Fired After Saying 'F---ing Sh-t' On Air (VIDEO) Why You Need a Sponsor at Work Late? Groggy? Hack Your Morning Routine /blog/workplace-issues/how-to-save-a-bad-first-day/ /blog/workplace-issues/how-to-save-a-bad-first-day/ Tue, 23 April 2013 14:28:00 Rachel Marx Boufford /blog/workplace-issues/why-you-need-a-sponsor-at-work/#detailed_comment You’ve heard a lot about mentoring, and your company may even have a formal mentoring program that matches junior employees with more senior management. In a typical mentoring relationship, mentees are free to ask their mentors questions about work policies, best practices, performance, reviews and more. Mentors, in turn, help guide their mentees through tricky situations at work and provide advice as needed. Often, though, the mentor/mentee relationship is a passive one. In contrast, a sponsor is an active advocate who seeks out new opportunities for you, uses his or her influence to make sure the right people know about your accomplishments and recommends that you be promoted or given a raise, as appropriate. A recent study  by the Center for Talent Innovation, an organization that focuses on advancing women and minorities, shows that sponsorship “makes a measurable difference in career progress”—for both men and women. This makes sense—in order to get ahead at work, get a promotion or raise, or be considered for the best assignments or client relationships, you need someone advocating on your behalf. Often—especially at a large company—keeping your head down and doing good work isn’t enough to get noticed and considered for these opportunities. So how do you go about finding a sponsor? Here are some tips to get you started: Start by doing your absolute best at work. You’ll need to put in the time and effort to be a top performer at work before someone more senior will be willing to put his or her name on the line to advocate for you. Volunteer for difficult projects, make sure your work product is at its absolute finest, and constantly ask yourself what else you could be doing to make your boss’s life easier. Identify and get to know influencers. It’s easy to get lost in a big company or firm, so introduce yourself to higher-ups. Before you go barging into the CEO’s office, though, make sure you have a logical reason for being there—whether it’s introducing yourself as a new employee or sharing a victory or accomplishment. Once you’ve identified a potential sponsor, volunteer for assignments he or she will be leading. Attend work events. Again, it’s important to get your name out there to potential sponsors, so if your company hosts a happy hour or other social gathering, do your best to attend. And once you’re there, don’t hang out in the corner with your work buddies (at least not for the whole time). Force yourself to introduce yourself to someone more senior to you. Once you’ve broken the ice outside the office, developing a work relationship will come more naturally. Ask for a meeting. It’s okay—and recommended—to ask a potential sponsor for a short meeting to discuss your goals. Make sure you’re prepared to discuss your performance and accomplishments thus far, as well as your vision for how you would like your career to develop. If it’s not working, move on. Companies with formal mentoring programs do their best to match you up with someone more senior, but these relationships are an art, not a science. If you’ve been assigned a mentor but aren’t connecting with him or her, feel free to pursue relationships with other managers or supervisors. /blog/workplace-issues/why-you-need-a-sponsor-at-work/ /blog/workplace-issues/why-you-need-a-sponsor-at-work/ Thu, 18 April 2013 12:52:00