Labor Discussion 3

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

Print | Close

A debate on career

and family See full

• SUBSCRIBE

• RENEW

• GIVE A GIFT

• DIGITAL EDITION

Why Women Still Can’t Have It All IT ’ S T IME T O S T O P F O O L IN G O U RS EL V ES , S A Y S A W O MA N W H O L EF T A PO S IT IO N O F PO W ER: T H E W O MEN

W H O H A V E MA N A G ED T O BE BO T H MO T H ERS A N D T O P PRO F ES S IO N A L S A RE S U PERH U MA N , RIC H , O R S EL F -

EMPL O Y ED. IF W E T RU L Y BEL IEV E IN EQ U A L O PPO RT U N IT Y F O R A L L W O MEN , H ERE’ S W H A T H A S T O

C H A N G E.

By Anne-Marie Slaughter

EIGHTEEN MONTHS INTO my job as the first woman director of policy planning at the State

Department, a foreign-policy dream job that traces its origins back to George Kennan, I found myself in

New York, at the United Nations’ annual assemblage of every foreign minister and head of state in the

world. On a Wednesday evening, President and Mrs. Obama hosted a glamorous reception at the

American Museum of Natural History. I sipped champagne, greeted foreign dignitaries, and mingled.

But I could not stop thinking about my 14-year-old son, who had started eighth grade three weeks

earlier and was already resuming what had become his pattern of skipping homework, disrupting

classes, failing math, and tuning out any adult who tried to reach him. Over the summer, we had barely

spoken to each other—or, more accurately, he had barely spoken to me. And the previous spring I had

received several urgent phone calls—invariably on the day of an important meeting—that required me

to take the first train from Washington, D.C., where I worked, back to Princeton, New Jersey, where he

lived. My husband, who has always done everything possible to support my career, took care of him

and his 12-year-old brother during the week; outside of those midweek emergencies, I came home only

on weekends.

As the evening wore on, I ran into a colleague who held a senior position in the

White House. She has two sons exactly my sons’ ages, but she had chosen to

move them from California to D.C. when she got her job, which meant her

husband commuted back to California regularly. I told her how difficult I was

finding it to be away from my son when he clearly needed me. Then I said,

“When this is over, I’m going to write an op-ed titled ‘Women Can’t Have It

All.’”

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

OLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

coverageShe was horrified. “You can’t write that,” she said. “You, of all people.” What

she meant was that such a statement, coming from a high-profile career

woman—a role model—would be a terrible signal to younger generations of women. By the end of the

evening, she had talked me out of it, but for the remainder of my stint in Washington, I was increasingly

aware that the feminist beliefs on which I had built my entire career were shifting under my feet. I had

always assumed that if I could get a foreign-policy job in the State Department or the White House

while my party was in power, I would stay the course as long as I had the opportunity to do work I

loved. But in January 2011, when my two-year public-service leave from Princeton University was up,

I hurried home as fast as I could.

A rude epiphany hit me soon after I got there. When people asked why I had left government, I

explained that I’d come home not only because of Princeton’s rules (after two years of leave, you lose

your tenure), but also because of my desire to be with my family and my conclusion that juggling high-

level government work with the needs of two teenage boys was not possible. I have not exactly left the

ranks of full-time career women: I teach a full course load; write regular print and online columns on

foreign policy; give 40 to 50 speeches a year; appear regularly on TV and radio; and am working on a

new academic book. But I routinely got reactions from other women my age or older that ranged from

disappointed (“It’s such a pity that you had to leave Washington”) to condescending (“I wouldn’t

generalize from your experience. I’ve never had to compromise, and my kids turned out great”).

The first set of reactions, with the underlying assumption that my choice was somehow sad or

unfortunate, was irksome enough. But it was the second set of reactions—those implying that my

parenting and/or my commitment to my profession were somehow substandard—that triggered a blind

fury. Suddenly, finally, the penny dropped. All my life, I’d been on the other side of this exchange. I’d

been the woman smiling the faintly superior smile while another woman told me she had decided to

take some time out or pursue a less competitive career track so that she could spend more time with

her family. I’d been the woman congratulating herself on her unswerving commitment to the feminist

cause, chatting smugly with her dwindling number of college or law-school friends who had reached and

maintained their place on the highest rungs of their profession. I’d been the one telling young women at

my lectures that you can have it all and do it all, regardless of what field you are in. Which means I’d

been part, albeit unwittingly, of making millions of women feel that they are to blame if they cannot

manage to rise up the ladder as fast as men and also have a family and an active home life (and be thin

and beautiful to boot).

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

PLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

VIDEO: Anne-Marie Slaughter talks with Hanna Rosin about the struggles of working mothers.

Last spring, I flew to Oxford to give a public lecture. At the request of a young Rhodes Scholar I know,

I’d agreed to talk to the Rhodes community about “work-family balance.” I ended up speaking to a

group of about 40 men and women in their mid-20s. What poured out of me was a set of very frank

reflections on how unexpectedly hard it was to do the kind of job I wanted to do as a high government

official and be the kind of parent I wanted to be, at a demanding time for my children (even though my

husband, an academic, was willing to take on the lion’s share of parenting for the two years I was in

Washington). I concluded by saying that my time in office had convinced me that further government

service would be very unlikely while my sons were still at home. The audience was rapt, and asked

many thoughtful questions. One of the first was from a young woman who began by thanking me for

“not giving just one more fatuous ‘You can have it all’ talk.” Just about all of the women in that room

planned to combine careers and family in some way. But almost all assumed and accepted that they

would have to make compromises that the men in their lives were far less likely to have to make.

The striking gap between the responses I heard from those young women (and others like them) and

the responses I heard from my peers and associates prompted me to write this article. Women of my

generation have clung to the feminist credo we were raised with, even as our ranks have been steadily

thinned by unresolvable tensions between family and career, because we are determined not to drop

the flag for the next generation. But when many members of the younger generation have stopped

listening, on the grounds that glibly repeating “you can have it all” is simply airbrushing reality, it is

time to talk.

I still strongly believe that women can “have it all” (and that men can too). I believe that we can “have

it all at the same time.” But not today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently

structured. My experiences over the past three years have forced me to confront a number of

uncomfortable facts that need to be widely acknowledged—and quickly changed.

BEFORE MY SERVICE in government, I’d spent my career in academia: as a law professor and then as

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

QLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

the dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Both were

demanding jobs, but I had the ability to set my own schedule most of the time. I could be with my kids

when I needed to be, and still get the work done. I had to travel frequently, but I found I could make up

for that with an extended period at home or a family vacation.

I knew that I was lucky in my career choice, but I had no idea how lucky until I spent two years in

Washington within a rigid bureaucracy, even with bosses as understanding as Hillary Clinton and her

chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. My workweek started at 4:20 on Monday morning, when I got up to get the

5:30 train from Trenton to Washington. It ended late on Friday, with the train home. In between, the

days were crammed with meetings, and when the meetings stopped, the writing work began—a never-

ending stream of memos, reports, and comments on other people’s drafts. For two years, I never left

the office early enough to go to any stores other than those open 24 hours, which meant that everything

from dry cleaning to hair appointments to Christmas shopping had to be done on weekends, amid

children’s sporting events, music lessons, family meals, and conference calls. I was entitled to four hours

of vacation per pay period, which came to one day of vacation a month. And I had it better than many

of my peers in D.C.; Secretary Clinton deliberately came in around 8 a.m. and left around 7 p.m., to

allow her close staff to have morning and evening time with their families (although of course she

worked earlier and later, from home).

In short, the minute I found myself in a job that is typical for the vast majority of working women (and

men), working long hours on someone else’s schedule, I could no longer be both the parent and the

professional I wanted to be—at least not with a child experiencing a rocky adolescence. I realized what

should have perhaps been obvious: having it all, at least for me, depended almost entirely on what type

of job I had. The flip side is the harder truth: having it all was not possible in many types of jobs,

including high government office—at least not for very long.

I am hardly alone in this realization. Michèle Flournoy stepped down after three years as

undersecretary of defense for policy, the third-highest job in the department, to spend more time at

home with her three children, two of whom are teenagers. Karen Hughes left her position as the

counselor to President George W. Bush after a year and a half in Washington to go home to Texas for

the sake of her family. Mary Matalin, who spent two years as an assistant to Bush and the counselor to

Vice President Dick Cheney before stepping down to spend more time with her daughters, wrote:

“Having control over your schedule is the only way that women who want to have a career and a family

can make it work.”

Yet the decision to step down from a position of power—to value family over professional advancement,

even for a time—is directly at odds with the prevailing social pressures on career professionals in the

United States. One phrase says it all about current attitudes toward work and family, particularly

among elites. In Washington, “leaving to spend time with your family” is a euphemism for being fired.

This understanding is so ingrained that when Flournoy announced her resignation last December,

TheNew York Times covered her decision as follows:

Ms. Flournoy’s announcement surprised friends and a number of Pentagon officials, but all said

they took her reason for resignation at face value and not as a standard Washington excuse for

an official who has in reality been forced out. “I can absolutely and unequivocally state that her

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

RLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

decision to step down has nothing to do with anything other than her commitment to her family,”

said Doug Wilson, a top Pentagon spokesman. “She has loved this job and people here love her.

Think about what this “standard Washington excuse” implies: it is so unthinkable that an official would

actually step down to spend time with his or her family that this must be a cover for something else.

How could anyone voluntarily leave the circles of power for the responsibilities of parenthood?

Depending on one’s vantage point, it is either ironic or maddening that this view abides in the nation’s

capital, despite the ritual commitments to “family values” that are part of every political campaign.

Regardless, this sentiment makes true work-life balance exceptionally difficult. But it cannot change

unless top women speak out.

Only recently have I begun to appreciate the extent to which many young professional women feel

under assault by women my age and older. After I gave a recent speech in New York, several women in

their late 60s or early 70s came up to tell me how glad and proud they were to see me speaking as a

foreign-policy expert. A couple of them went on, however, to contrast my career with the path being

traveled by “younger women today.” One expressed dismay that many younger women “are just not

willing to get out there and do it.” Said another, unaware of the circumstances of my recent job change:

“They think they have to choose between having a career and having a family.”

A similar assumption underlies Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg’s widely publicized

2011 commencement speech at Barnard, and her earlier TED talk, in which she lamented the dismally

small number of women at the top and advised young women not to “leave before you leave.” When a

woman starts thinking about having children, Sandberg said, “she doesn’t raise her hand anymore …

She starts leaning back.” Although couched in terms of encouragement, Sandberg’s exhortation

contains more than a note of reproach. We who have made it to the top, or are striving to get there, are

essentially saying to the women in the generation behind us: “What’s the matter with you?”

They have an answer that we don’t want to hear. After the speech I gave in New York, I went to dinner

with a group of 30-somethings. I sat across from two vibrant women, one of whom worked at the UN

and the other at a big New York law firm. As nearly always happens in these situations, they soon

began asking me about work-life balance. When I told them I was writing this article, the lawyer said,

“I look for role models and can’t find any.” She said the women in her firm who had become partners

and taken on management positions had made tremendous sacrifices, “many of which they don’t even

seem to realize … They take two years off when their kids are young but then work like crazy to get

back on track professionally, which means that they see their kids when they are toddlers but not

teenagers, or really barely at all.” Her friend nodded, mentioning the top professional women she knew,

all of whom essentially relied on round-the-clock nannies. Both were very clear that they did not want

that life, but could not figure out how to combine professional success and satisfaction with a real

commitment to family.

I realize that I am blessed to have been born in the late 1950s instead of the early 1930s, as my mother

was, or the beginning of the 20th century, as my grandmothers were. My mother built a successful and

rewarding career as a professional artist largely in the years after my brothers and I left home—and

after being told in her 20s that she could not go to medical school, as her father had done and her

brother would go on to do, because, of course, she was going to get married. I owe my own freedoms

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

SLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

and opportunities to the pioneering generation of women ahead of me—the women now in their 60s,

70s, and 80s who faced overt sexism of a kind I see only when watching Mad Men, and who knew that

the only way to make it as a woman was to act exactly like a man. To admit to, much less act on,

maternal longings would have been fatal to their careers.

But precisely thanks to their progress, a different kind of conversation is now possible. It is time for

women in leadership positions to recognize that although we are still blazing trails and breaking ceilings,

many of us are also reinforcing a falsehood: that “having it all” is, more than anything, a function of

personal determination. As Kerry Rubin and Lia Macko, the authors of Midlife Crisis at 30, their cri de

coeur for Gen-X and Gen-Y women, put it:

What we discovered in our research is that while the empowerment part of the equation has

been loudly celebrated, there has been very little honest discussion among women of our age

about the real barriers and flaws that still exist in the system despite the opportunities we

inherited.

I am well aware that the majority of American women face problems far greater than any discussed in

this article. I am writing for my demographic—highly educated, well-off women who are privileged

enough to have choices in the first place. We may not have choices about whether to do paid work, as

dual incomes have become indispensable. But we have choices about the type and tempo of the work

we do. We are the women who could be leading, and who should be equally represented in the

leadership ranks.

Millions of other working women face much more difficult life circumstances. Some are single mothers;

many struggle to find any job; others support husbands who cannot find jobs. Many cope with a work

life in which good day care is either unavailable or very expensive; school schedules do not match work

schedules; and schools themselves are failing to educate their children. Many of these women are

worrying not about having it all, but rather about holding on to what they do have. And although

women as a group have made substantial gains in wages, educational attainment, and prestige over the

past three decades, the economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson have shown that women are

less happy today than their predecessors were in 1972, both in absolute terms and relative to men.

The best hope for improving the lot of all women, and for closing what Wolfers and Stevenson call a

“new gender gap”—measured by well-being rather than wages—is to close the leadership gap: to elect a

woman president and 50 women senators; to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks

of corporate executives and judicial leaders. Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will

we create a society that genuinely works for all women. That will be a society that works for everyone.

The Half-Truths We Hold Dear

Let’s briefly examine the stories we tell ourselves, the clichés that I and many other women typically

fall back on when younger women ask us how we have managed to “have it all.” They are not

necessarily lies, but at best partial truths. We must clear them out of the way to make room for a more

honest and productive discussion about real solutions to the problems faced by professional women.

It’s possible if you are just committed enough.

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

TLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

Our usual starting point, whether we say it explicitly or not, is that having it all depends primarily on

the depth and intensity of a woman’s commitment to her career. That is precisely the sentiment behind

the dismay so many older career women feel about the younger generation. They are not committed

enough, we say, to make the trade-offs and sacrifices that the women ahead of them made.

Yet instead of chiding, perhaps we should face some basic facts. Very few women reach leadership

positions. The pool of female candidates for any top job is small, and will only grow smaller if the women

who come after us decide to take time out, or drop out of professional competition altogether, to raise

children. That is exactly what has Sheryl Sandberg so upset, and rightly so. In her words, “Women are

not making it to the top. A hundred and ninety heads of state; nine are women. Of all the people in

parliament in the world, 13 percent are women. In the corporate sector, [the share of] women at the

top—C-level jobs, board seats—tops out at 15, 16 percent.”

Also see:

Ask Anne-Marie Slaughter a Question

The author will be online on Friday, June 29, at 11 a.m. Eastern time to discuss her story. Click the link

above to submit your questions in advance.

Can “insufficient commitment” even plausibly explain these numbers? To be sure, the women who do

make it to the top are highly committed to their profession. On closer examination, however, it turns

out that most of them have something else in common: they are genuine superwomen. Consider the

number of women recently in the top ranks in Washington—Susan Rice, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall,

Michelle Gavin, Nancy-Ann Min DeParle—who are Rhodes Scholars. Samantha Power, another senior

White House official, won a Pulitzer Prize at age 32. Or consider Sandberg herself, who graduated with

the prize given to Harvard’s top student of economics. These women cannot possibly be the standard

against which even very talented professional women should measure themselves. Such a standard sets

up most women for a sense of failure.

What’s more, among those who have made it to the top, a balanced life still is more elusive for women

than it is for men. A simple measure is how many women in top positions have children compared with

their male colleagues. Every male Supreme Court justice has a family. Two of the three female justices

are single with no children. And the third, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, began her career as a judge only when

her younger child was almost grown. The pattern is the same at the National Security Council:

Condoleezza Rice, the first and only woman national-security adviser, is also the only national-security

adviser since the 1950s not to have a family.

The line of high-level women appointees in the Obama administration is one woman deep. Virtually all

of us who have stepped down have been succeeded by men; searches for women to succeed men in

similar positions come up empty. Just about every woman who could plausibly be tapped is already in

government. The rest of the foreign-policy world is not much better; Micah Zenko, a fellow at the

Council on Foreign Relations, recently surveyed the best data he could find across the government, the

military, the academy, and think tanks, and found that women hold fewer than 30 percent of the senior

foreign-policy positions in each of these institutions.

These numbers are all the more striking when we look back to the 1980s, when women now in their

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

ULOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

late 40s and 50s were coming out of graduate school, and remember that our classes were nearly 50-

50 men and women. We were sure then that by now, we would be living in a 50-50 world. Something

derailed that dream.

Sandberg thinks that “something” is an “ambition gap”—that women do not dream big enough. I am all

for encouraging young women to reach for the stars. But I fear that the obstacles that keep women

from reaching the top are rather more prosaic than the scope of their ambition. My longtime and

invaluable assistant, who has a doctorate and juggles many balls as the mother of teenage twins, e-

mailed me while I was working on this article: “You know what would help the vast majority of women

with work/family balance? MAKE SCHOOL SCHEDULES MATCH WORK SCHEDULES.” The present

system, she noted, is based on a society that no longer exists—one in which farming was a major

occupation and stay-at-home moms were the norm. Yet the system hasn’t changed.

Consider some of the responses of women interviewed by Zenko about why “women are significantly

underrepresented in foreign policy and national security positions in government, academia, and think

tanks.” Juliette Kayyem, who served as an assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security

from 2009 to 2011 and now writes a foreign-policy and national-security column for The Boston Globe,

told Zenko that among other reasons,

the basic truth is also this: the travel sucks. As my youngest of three children is now 6, I can

look back at the years when they were all young and realize just how disruptive all the travel

was. There were also trips I couldn’t take because I was pregnant or on leave, the conferences I

couldn’t attend because (note to conference organizers: weekends are a bad choice) kids would

be home from school, and the various excursions that were offered but just couldn’t be managed.

Jolynn Shoemaker, the director of Women in International Security, agreed: “Inflexible schedules,

unrelenting travel, and constant pressure to be in the office are common features of these jobs.”

These “mundane” issues—the need to travel constantly to succeed, the conflicts between school

schedules and work schedules, the insistence that work be done in the office—cannot be solved by

exhortations to close the ambition gap. I would hope to see commencement speeches that finger

America’s social and business policies, rather than women’s level of ambition, in explaining the dearth of

women at the top. But changing these policies requires much more than speeches. It means fighting the

mundane battles—every day, every year—in individual workplaces, in legislatures, and in the media.

It’s possible if you marry the right person.

Sandberg’s second message in her Barnard commencement address was: “The most important career

decision you’re going to make is whether or not you have a life partner and who that partner is.” Lisa

Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, recently drove that message home

to an audience of Princeton students and alumni gathered to hear her acceptance speech for the James

Madison Medal. During the Q&A session, an audience member asked her how she managed her career

and her family. She laughed and pointed to her husband in the front row, saying: “There’s my work-life

balance.” I could never have had the career I have had without my husband, Andrew Moravcsik, who is

a tenured professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton. Andy has spent more time with our

sons than I have, not only on homework, but also on baseball, music lessons, photography, card games,

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

VLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

and more. When each of them had to bring in a foreign dish for his fourth-grade class dinner, Andy

made his grandmother’s Hungarian palacsinta; when our older son needed to memorize his lines for a

lead role in a school play, he turned to Andy for help.

Still, the proposition that women can have high-powered careers as long as their husbands or partners

are willing to share the parenting load equally (or disproportionately) assumes that most women will

feel as comfortable as men do about being away from their children, as long as their partner is home

with them. In my experience, that is simply not the case.

Here I step onto treacherous ground, mined with stereotypes. From years of conversations and

observations, however, I’ve come to believe that men and women respond quite differently when

problems at home force them to recognize that their absence is hurting a child, or at least that their

presence would likely help. I do not believe fathers love their children any less than mothers do, but

men do seem more likely to choose their job at a cost to their family, while women seem more likely to

choose their family at a cost to their job.

Many factors determine this choice, of course. Men are still socialized to believe that their primary

family obligation is to be the breadwinner; women, to believe that their primary family obligation is to

be the caregiver. But it may be more than that. When I described the choice between my children and

my job to Senator Jeanne Shaheen, she said exactly what I felt: “There’s really no choice.” She wasn’t

referring to social expectations, but to a maternal imperative felt so deeply that the “choice” is

reflexive.

Men and women also seem to frame the choice differently. In Midlife Crisis at 30, Mary Matalin recalls

her days working as President Bush’s assistant and Vice President Cheney’s counselor:

Even when the stress was overwhelming—those days when I’d cry in the car on the way to

work, asking myself “Why am I doing this??”—I always knew the answer to that question: I

believe in this president.

But Matalin goes on to describe her choice to leave in words that are again uncannily similar to the

explanation I have given so many people since leaving the State Department:

I finally asked myself, “Who needs me more?” And that’s when I realized, it’s somebody else’s

turn to do this job. I’m indispensable to my kids, but I’m not close to indispensable to the White

House.

To many men, however, the choice to spend more time with their children, instead of working long

hours on issues that affect many lives, seems selfish. Male leaders are routinely praised for having

sacrificed their personal life on the altar of public or corporate service. That sacrifice, of course, typically

involves their family. Yet their children, too, are trained to value public service over private

responsibility. At the diplomat Richard Holbrooke’s memorial service, one of his sons told the audience

that when he was a child, his father was often gone, not around to teach him to throw a ball or to watch

his games. But as he grew older, he said, he realized that Holbrooke’s absence was the price of saving

people around the world—a price worth paying.

It is not clear to me that this ethical framework makes sense for society. Why should we want leaders

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NMLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

who fall short on personal responsibilities? Perhaps leaders who invested time in their own families

would be more keenly aware of the toll their public choices—on issues from war to welfare—take on

private lives. (Kati Marton, Holbrooke’s widow and a noted author, says that although Holbrooke

adored his children, he came to appreciate the full importance of family only in his 50s, at which point

he became a very present parent and grandparent, while continuing to pursue an extraordinary public

career.) Regardless, it is clear which set of choices society values more today. Workers who put their

careers first are typically rewarded; workers who choose their families are overlooked, disbelieved, or

accused of unprofessionalism.

In sum, having a supportive mate may well be a necessary condition if women are to have it all, but it is

not sufficient. If women feel deeply that turning down a promotion that would involve more travel, for

instance, is the right thing to do, then they will continue to do that. Ultimately, it is society that must

change, coming to value choices to put family ahead of work just as much as those to put work ahead of

family. If we really valued those choices, we would value the people who make them; if we valued the

people who make them, we would do everything possible to hire and retain them; if we did everything

possible to allow them to combine work and family equally over time, then the choices would get a lot

easier.

It’s possible if you sequence it right.

Young women should be wary of the assertion “You can have it all; you just can’t have it all at once.”

This 21st-century addendum to the original line is now proffered by many senior women to their

younger mentees. To the extent that it means, in the words of one working mother, “I’m going to do my

best and I’m going to keep the long term in mind and know that it’s not always going to be this hard to

balance,” it is sound advice. But to the extent that it means that women can have it all if they just find

the right sequence of career and family, it’s cheerfully wrong.

The most important sequencing issue is when to have children. Many of the top women leaders of the

generation just ahead of me—Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day

O’Connor, Patricia Wald, Nannerl Keohane—had their children in their 20s and early 30s, as was the

norm in the 1950s through the 1970s. A child born when his mother is 25 will finish high school when

his mother is 43, an age at which, with full-time immersion in a career, she still has plenty of time and

energy for advancement.

Yet this sequence has fallen out of favor with many high-potential women, and understandably so.

People tend to marry later now, and anyway, if you have children earlier, you may have difficulty

getting a graduate degree, a good first job, and opportunities for advancement in the crucial early years

of your career. Making matters worse, you will also have less income while raising your children, and

hence less ability to hire the help that can be indispensable to your juggling act.

When I was the dean, the Woodrow Wilson School created a program called Pathways to Public Service,

aimed at advising women whose children were almost grown about how to go into public service, and

many women still ask me about the best “on-ramps” to careers in their mid-40s. Honestly, I’m not

sure what to tell most of them. Unlike the pioneering women who entered the workforce after having

children in the 1970s, these women are competing with their younger selves. Government and NGO

jobs are an option, but many careers are effectively closed off. Personally, I have never seen a woman

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NNLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

in her 40s enter the academic market successfully, or enter a law firm as a junior associate, Alicia

Florrick of The Good Wife notwithstanding.

These considerations are why so many career women of my generation chose to establish themselves in

their careers first and have children in their mid-to-late 30s. But that raises the possibility of spending

long, stressful years and a small fortune trying to have a baby. I lived that nightmare: for three years,

beginning at age 35, I did everything possible to conceive and was frantic at the thought that I had

simply left having a biological child until it was too late.

And when everything does work out? I had my first child at 38 (and counted myself blessed) and my

second at 40. That means I will be 58 when both of my children are out of the house. What’s more, it

means that many peak career opportunities are coinciding precisely with their teenage years, when,

experienced parents advise, being available as a parent is just as important as in the first years of a

child’s life.

Many women of my generation have found themselves, in the prime of their careers, saying no to

opportunities they once would have jumped at and hoping those chances come around again later.

Many others who have decided to step back for a while, taking on consultant positions or part-time

work that lets them spend more time with their children (or aging parents), are worrying about how

long they can “stay out” before they lose the competitive edge they worked so hard to acquire.

Given the way our work culture is oriented today, I recommend establishing yourself in your career

first but still trying to have kids before you are 35—or else freeze your eggs, whether you are married

or not. You may well be a more mature and less frustrated parent in your 30s or 40s; you are also

more likely to have found a lasting life partner. But the truth is, neither sequence is optimal, and both

involve trade-offs that men do not have to make.

You should be able to have a family if you want one—however and whenever your life circumstances

allow—and still have the career you desire. If more women could strike this balance, more women

would reach leadership positions. And if more women were in leadership positions, they could make it

easier for more women to stay in the workforce. The rest of this essay details how.

Changing the Culture of Face Time

Back in the Reagan administration, a New York Times story about the ferociously competitive budget

director Dick Darman reported, “Mr. Darman sometimes managed to convey the impression that he

was the last one working in the Reagan White House by leaving his suit coat on his chair and his office

light burning after he left for home.” (Darman claimed that it was just easier to leave his suit jacket in

the office so he could put it on again in the morning, but his record of psychological manipulation

suggests otherwise.)

The culture of “time macho”—a relentless competition to work harder, stay later, pull more all-

nighters, travel around the world and bill the extra hours that the international date line affords you—

remains astonishingly prevalent among professionals today. Nothing captures the belief that more time

equals more value better than the cult of billable hours afflicting large law firms across the country and

providing exactly the wrong incentives for employees who hope to integrate work and family. Yet even

in industries that don’t explicitly reward sheer quantity of hours spent on the job, the pressure to

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NOLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

arrive early, stay late, and be available, always, for in-person meetings at 11 a.m. on Saturdays can be

intense. Indeed, by some measures, the problem has gotten worse over time: a study by the Center for

American Progress reports that nationwide, the share of all professionals—women and men—working

more than 50 hours a week has increased since the late 1970s.

But more time in the office does not always mean more “value added”—and it does not always add up to

a more successful organization. In 2009, Sandra Pocharski, a senior female partner at Monitor Group

and the head of the firm’s Leadership and Organization practice, commissioned a Harvard Business

School professor to assess the factors that helped or hindered women’s effectiveness and advancement

at Monitor. The study found that the company’s culture was characterized by an “always on” mode of

working, often without due regard to the impact on employees. Pocharski observed:

Clients come first, always, and sometimes burning the midnight oil really does make the

difference between success and failure. But sometimes we were just defaulting to behavior that

overloaded our people without improving results much, if at all. We decided we needed

managers to get better at distinguishing between these categories, and to recognize the hidden

costs of assuming that “time is cheap.” When that time doesn’t add a lot of value and comes at a

high cost to talented employees, who will leave when the personal cost becomes unsustainable—

well, that is clearly a bad outcome for everyone.

I have worked very long hours and pulled plenty of all-nighters myself over the course of my career,

including a few nights on my office couch during my two years in D.C. Being willing to put the time in

when the job simply has to get done is rightfully a hallmark of a successful professional. But looking

back, I have to admit that my assumption that I would stay late made me much less efficient over the

course of the day than I might have been, and certainly less so than some of my colleagues, who

managed to get the same amount of work done and go home at a decent hour. If Dick Darman had had a

boss who clearly valued prioritization and time management, he might have found reason to turn out

the lights and take his jacket home.

Long hours are one thing, and realistically, they are often unavoidable. But do they really need to be

spent at the office? To be sure, being in the office some of the time is beneficial. In-person meetings can

be far more efficient than phone or e-mail tag; trust and collegiality are much more easily built up

around the same physical table; and spontaneous conversations often generate good ideas and lasting

relationships. Still, armed with e-mail, instant messaging, phones, and videoconferencing technology, we

should be able to move to a culture where the office is a base of operations more than the required locus

of work.

Being able to work from home—in the evening after children are put to bed, or during their sick days or

snow days, and at least some of the time on weekends—can be the key, for mothers, to carrying your

full load versus letting a team down at crucial moments. State-of-the-art videoconferencing facilities

can dramatically reduce the need for long business trips. These technologies are making inroads, and

allowing easier integration of work and family life. According to the Women’s Business Center, 61

percent of women business owners use technology to “integrate the responsibilities of work and home”;

44 percent use technology to allow employees “to work off-site or to have flexible work schedules.” Yet

our work culture still remains more office-centered than it needs to be, especially in light of

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NPLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

technological advances.

One way to change that is by changing the “default rules” that govern office work—the baseline

expectations about when, where, and how work will be done. As behavioral economists well know, these

baselines can make an enormous difference in the way people act. It is one thing, for instance, for an

organization to allow phone-ins to a meeting on an ad hoc basis, when parenting and work schedules

collide—a system that’s better than nothing, but likely to engender guilt among those calling in, and

possibly resentment among those in the room. It is quite another for that organization to declare that

its policy will be to schedule in-person meetings, whenever possible, during the hours of the school day

—a system that might normalize call-ins for those (rarer) meetings still held in the late afternoon.

One real-world example comes from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a place most people

are more likely to associate with distinguished gentlemen in pinstripes than with progressive thinking

about work-family balance. Like so many other places, however, the FCO worries about losing talented

members of two-career couples around the world, particularly women. So it recently changed its basic

policy from a default rule that jobs have to be done on-site to one that assumes that some jobs might be

done remotely, and invites workers to make the case for remote work. Kara Owen, a career foreign-

service officer who was the FCO’s diversity director and will soon become the British deputy

ambassador to France, writes that she has now done two remote jobs. Before her current maternity

leave, she was working a London job from Dublin to be with her partner, using teleconferencing

technology and timing her trips to London to coincide “with key meetings where I needed to be in the

room (or chatting at the pre-meeting coffee) to have an impact, or to do intensive ‘network

maintenance.’” In fact, she writes, “I have found the distance and quiet to be a real advantage in a

strategic role, providing I have put in the investment up front to develop very strong personal

relationships with the game changers.” Owen recognizes that not every job can be done this way. But

she says that for her part, she has been able to combine family requirements with her career.

Changes in default office rules should not advantage parents over other workers; indeed, done right,

they can improve relations among co-workers by raising their awareness of each other’s circumstances

and instilling a sense of fairness. Two years ago, the ACLU Foundation of Massachusetts decided to

replace its “parental leave” policy with a “family leave” policy that provides for as much as 12 weeks of

leave not only for new parents, but also for employees who need to care for a spouse, child, or parent

with a serious health condition. According to Director Carol Rose, “We wanted a policy that took into

account the fact that even employees who do not have children have family obligations.” The policy was

shaped by the belief that giving women “special treatment” can “backfire if the broader norms shaping

the behavior of all employees do not change.” When I was the dean of the Wilson School, I managed

with the mantra “Family comes first”—any family—and found that my employees were both productive

and intensely loyal.

None of these changes will happen by themselves, and reasons to avoid them will seldom be hard to

find. But obstacles and inertia are usually surmountable if leaders are open to changing their

assumptions about the workplace. The use of technology in many high-level government jobs, for

instance, is complicated by the need to have access to classified information. But in 2009, Deputy

Secretary of State James Steinberg, who shares the parenting of his two young daughters equally with

his wife, made getting such access at home an immediate priority so that he could leave the office at a

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NQLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

reasonable hour and participate in important meetings via videoconferencing if necessary. I wonder

how many women in similar positions would be afraid to ask, lest they be seen as insufficiently

committed to their jobs.

Revaluing Family Values

While employers shouldn’t privilege parents over other workers, too often they end up doing the

opposite, usually subtly, and usually in ways that make it harder for a primary caregiver to get ahead.

Many people in positions of power seem to place a low value on child care in comparison with other

outside activities. Consider the following proposition: An employer has two equally talented and

productive employees. One trains for and runs marathons when he is not working. The other takes care

of two children. What assumptions is the employer likely to make about the marathon runner? That he

gets up in the dark every day and logs an hour or two running before even coming into the office, or

drives himself to get out there even after a long day. That he is ferociously disciplined and willing to

push himself through distraction, exhaustion, and days when nothing seems to go right in the service of

a goal far in the distance. That he must manage his time exceptionally well to squeeze all of that in.

Be honest: Do you think the employer makes those same assumptions about the parent? Even though

she likely rises in the dark hours before she needs to be at work, organizes her children’s day, makes

breakfast, packs lunch, gets them off to school, figures out shopping and other errands even if she is

lucky enough to have a housekeeper—and does much the same work at the end of the day. Cheryl Mills,

Hillary Clinton’s indefatigable chief of staff, has twins in elementary school; even with a fully engaged

husband, she famously gets up at four every morning to check and send e-mails before her kids wake

up. Louise Richardson, now the vice chancellor of the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland, combined

an assistant professorship in government at Harvard with mothering three young children. She

organized her time so ruthlessly that she always keyed in 1:11 or 2:22 or 3:33 on the microwave rather

than 1:00, 2:00, or 3:00, because hitting the same number three times took less time.

Elizabeth Warren, who is now running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, has a similar story. When

she had two young children and a part-time law practice, she struggled to find enough time to write the

papers and articles that would help get her an academic position. In her words:

I needed a plan. I figured out that writing time was when Alex was asleep. So the minute I put

him down for a nap or he fell asleep in the baby swing, I went to my desk and started working on

something—footnotes, reading, outlining, writing … I learned to do everything else with a baby

on my hip.

The discipline, organization, and sheer endurance it takes to succeed at top levels with young children

at home is easily comparable to running 20 to 40 miles a week. But that’s rarely how employers see

things, not only when making allowances, but when making promotions. Perhaps because people

choose to have children? People also choose to run marathons.

One final example: I have worked with many Orthodox Jewish men who observed the Sabbath from

sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. Jack Lew, the two-time director of the Office of

Management and Budget, former deputy secretary of state for management and resources, and now

White House chief of staff, is a case in point. Jack’s wife lived in New York when he worked in the State

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NRLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

Department, so he would leave the office early enough on Friday afternoon to take the shuttle to New

York and a taxi to his apartment before sundown. He would not work on Friday after sundown or all

day Saturday. Everyone who knew him, including me, admired his commitment to his faith and his

ability to carve out the time for it, even with an enormously demanding job.

It is hard to imagine, however, that we would have the same response if a mother told us she was

blocking out mid-Friday afternoon through the end of the day on Saturday, every week, to spend time

with her children. I suspect this would be seen as unprofessional, an imposition of unnecessary costs on

co-workers. In fact, of course, one of the great values of the Sabbath—whether Jewish or Christian—is

precisely that it carves out a family oasis, with rituals and a mandatory setting-aside of work.

Our assumptions are just that: things we believe that are not necessarily so. Yet what we assume has

an enormous impact on our perceptions and responses. Fortunately, changing our assumptions is up to

us.

Redefining the Arc of a Successful Career

The American definition of a successful professional is someone who can climb the ladder the furthest in

the shortest time, generally peaking between ages 45 and 55. It is a definition well suited to the mid-

20th century, an era when people had kids in their 20s, stayed in one job, retired at 67, and were dead,

on average, by age 71.

It makes far less sense today. Average life expectancy for people in their 20s has increased to 80; men

and women in good health can easily work until they are 75. They can expect to have multiple jobs and

even multiple careers throughout their working life. Couples marry later, have kids later, and can

expect to live on two incomes. They may well retire earlier—the average retirement age has gone down

from 67 to 63—but that is commonly “retirement” only in the sense of collecting retirement benefits.

Many people go on to “encore” careers.

Assuming the priceless gifts of good health and good fortune, a professional woman can thus expect her

working life to stretch some 50 years, from her early or mid-20s to her mid-70s. It is reasonable to

assume that she will build her credentials and establish herself, at least in her first career, between 22

and 35; she will have children, if she wants them, sometime between 25 and 45; she’ll want maximum

flexibility and control over her time in the 10 years that her children are 8 to 18; and she should plan to

take positions of maximum authority and demands on her time after her children are out of the house.

Women who have children in their late 20s can expect to immerse themselves completely in their

careers in their late 40s, with plenty of time still to rise to the top in their late 50s and early 60s.

Women who make partner, managing director, or senior vice president; get tenure; or establish a

medical practice before having children in their late 30s should be coming back on line for the most

demanding jobs at almost exactly the same age.

Along the way, women should think about the climb to leadership not in terms of a straight upward

slope, but as irregular stair steps, with periodic plateaus (and even dips) when they turn down

promotions to remain in a job that works for their family situation; when they leave high-powered jobs

and spend a year or two at home on a reduced schedule; or when they step off a conventional

professional track to take a consulting position or project-based work for a number of years. I think of

these plateaus as “investment intervals.” My husband and I took a sabbatical in Shanghai, from August

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NSLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

2007 to May 2008, right in the thick of an election year when many of my friends were advising

various candidates on foreign-policy issues. We thought of the move in part as “putting money in the

family bank,” taking advantage of the opportunity to spend a close year together in a foreign culture.

But we were also investing in our children’s ability to learn Mandarin and in our own knowledge of Asia.

Peaking in your late 50s and early 60s rather than your late 40s and early 50s makes particular sense

for women, who live longer than men. And many of the stereotypes about older workers simply do not

hold. A 2006 survey of human-resources professionals shows that only 23 percent think older workers

are less flexible than younger workers; only 11 percent think older workers require more training than

younger workers; and only 7 percent think older workers have less drive than younger workers.

Whether women will really have the confidence to stair-step their careers, however, will again depend

in part on perceptions. Slowing down the rate of promotions, taking time out periodically, pursuing an

alternative path during crucial parenting or parent-care years—all have to become more visible and

more noticeably accepted as a pause rather than an opt-out. (In an encouraging sign, Mass Career

Customization, a 2007 book by Cathleen Benko and Anne Weisberg arguing that “today’s career is no

longer a straight climb up the corporate ladder, but rather a combination of climbs, lateral moves, and

planned descents,” was a Wall Street Journal best seller.)

Institutions can also take concrete steps to promote this acceptance. For instance, in 1970, Princeton

established a tenure-extension policy that allowed female assistant professors expecting a child to

request a one-year extension on their tenure clocks. This policy was later extended to men, and

broadened to include adoptions. In the early 2000s, two reports on the status of female faculty

discovered that only about 3 percent of assistant professors requested tenure extensions in a given

year. And in response to a survey question, women were much more likely than men to think that a

tenure extension would be detrimental to an assistant professor’s career.

So in 2005, under President Shirley Tilghman, Princeton changed the default rule. The administration

announced that all assistant professors, female and male, who had a new child would automatically

receive a one-year extension on the tenure clock, with no opt-outs allowed. Instead, assistant

professors could request early consideration for tenure if they wished. The number of assistant

professors who receive a tenure extension has tripled since the change.

One of the best ways to move social norms in this direction is to choose and celebrate different role

models. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and I are poles apart politically, but he went way up in my

estimation when he announced that one reason he decided against running for president in 2012 was

the impact his campaign would have had on his children. He reportedly made clear at a fund-raiser in

Louisiana that he didn’t want to be away from his children for long periods of time; according to a

Republican official at the event, he said that “his son [missed] him after being gone for the three days

on the road, and that he needed to get back.” He may not get my vote if and when he does run for

president, but he definitely gets my admiration (providing he doesn’t turn around and join the GOP

ticket this fall).

If we are looking for high-profile female role models, we might begin with Michelle Obama. She started

out with the same résumé as her husband, but has repeatedly made career decisions designed to let her

do work she cared about and also be the kind of parent she wanted to be. She moved from a high-

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NTLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

powered law firm first to Chicago city government and then to the University of Chicago shortly before

her daughters were born, a move that let her work only 10 minutes away from home. She has spoken

publicly and often about her initial concerns that her husband’s entry into politics would be bad for their

family life, and about her determination to limit her participation in the presidential election campaign

to have more time at home. Even as first lady, she has been adamant that she be able to balance her

official duties with family time. We should see her as a full-time career woman, but one who is taking a

very visible investment interval. We should celebrate her not only as a wife, mother, and champion of

healthy eating, but also as a woman who has had the courage and judgment to invest in her daughters

when they need her most. And we should expect a glittering career from her after she leaves the White

House and her daughters leave for college.

Rediscovering the Pursuit of Happiness

One of the most complicated and surprising parts of my journey out of Washington was coming to grips

with what I really wanted. I had opportunities to stay on, and I could have tried to work out an

arrangement allowing me to spend more time at home. I might have been able to get my family to join

me in Washington for a year; I might have been able to get classified technology installed at my house

the way Jim Steinberg did; I might have been able to commute only four days a week instead of five.

(While this last change would have still left me very little time at home, given the intensity of my job, it

might have made the job doable for another year or two.) But I realized that I didn’t just need to go

home. Deep down, I wanted to go home. I wanted to be able to spend time with my children in the last

few years that they are likely to live at home, crucial years for their development into responsible,

productive, happy, and caring adults. But also irreplaceable years for me to enjoy the simple pleasures

of parenting—baseball games, piano recitals, waffle breakfasts, family trips, and goofy rituals. My older

son is doing very well these days, but even when he gives us a hard time, as all teenagers do, being

home to shape his choices and help him make good decisions is deeply satisfying.

The flip side of my realization is captured in Macko and Rubin’s ruminations on the importance of

bringing the different parts of their lives together as 30-year-old women:

If we didn’t start to learn how to integrate our personal, social, and professional lives, we were

about five years away from morphing into the angry woman on the other side of a mahogany

desk who questions her staff’s work ethic after standard 12-hour workdays, before heading

home to eat moo shoo pork in her lonely apartment.

Women have contributed to the fetish of the one-dimensional life, albeit by necessity. The pioneer

generation of feminists walled off their personal lives from their professional personas to ensure that

they could never be discriminated against for a lack of commitment to their work. When I was a law

student in the 1980s, many women who were then climbing the legal hierarchy in New York firms told

me that they never admitted to taking time out for a child’s doctor appointment or school performance,

but instead invented a much more neutral excuse.

Today, however, women in power can and should change that environment, although change is not

easy. When I became dean of the Woodrow Wilson School, in 2002, I decided that one of the

advantages of being a woman in power was that I could help change the norms by deliberately talking

about my children and my desire to have a balanced life. Thus, I would end faculty meetings at 6 p.m.

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NULOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

by saying that I had to go home for dinner; I would also make clear to all student organizations that I

would not come to dinner with them, because I needed to be home from six to eight, but that I would

often be willing to come back after eight for a meeting. I also once told the Dean’s Advisory Committee

that the associate dean would chair the next session so I could go to a parent-teacher conference.

After a few months of this, several female assistant professors showed up in my office quite agitated.

“You have to stop talking about your kids,” one said. “You are not showing the gravitas that people

expect from a dean, which is particularly damaging precisely because you are the first woman dean of

the school.” I told them that I was doing it deliberately and continued my practice, but it is interesting

that gravitas and parenthood don’t seem to go together.

Ten years later, whenever I am introduced at a lecture or other speaking engagement, I insist that the

person introducing me mention that I have two sons. It seems odd to me to list degrees, awards,

positions, and interests and not include the dimension of my life that is most important to me—and

takes an enormous amount of my time. As Secretary Clinton once said in a television interview in

Beijing when the interviewer asked her about Chelsea’s upcoming wedding: “That’s my real life.” But I

notice that my male introducers are typically uncomfortable when I make the request. They frequently

say things like “And she particularly wanted me to mention that she has two sons”—thereby drawing

attention to the unusual nature of my request, when my entire purpose is to make family references

routine and normal in professional life.

This does not mean that you should insist that your colleagues spend time cooing over pictures of your

baby or listening to the prodigious accomplishments of your kindergartner. It does mean that if you are

late coming in one week, because it is your turn to drive the kids to school, that you be honest about

what you are doing. Indeed, Sheryl Sandberg recently acknowledged not only that she leaves work at

5:30 to have dinner with her family, but also that for many years she did not dare make this admission,

even though she would of course make up the work time later in the evening. Her willingness to speak

out now is a strong step in the right direction.

Seeking out a more balanced life is not a women’s issue; balance would be better for us all. Bronnie

Ware, an Australian blogger who worked for years in palliative care and is the author of the 2011 book

The Top Five Regrets of the Dying, writes that the regret she heard most often was “I wish I’d had the

courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.” The second-most-common

regret was “I wish I didn’t work so hard.” She writes: “This came from every male patient that I

nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship.”

Juliette Kayyem, who several years ago left the Department of Homeland Security soon after her

husband, David Barron, left a high position in the Justice Department, says their joint decision to leave

Washington and return to Boston sprang from their desire to work on the “happiness project,” meaning

quality time with their three children. (She borrowed the term from her friend Gretchen Rubin, who

wrote a best-selling book and now runs a blog with that name.)

It’s time to embrace a national happiness project. As a daughter of Charlottesville, Virginia, the home of

Thomas Jefferson and the university he founded, I grew up with the Declaration of Independence in my

blood. Last I checked, he did not declare American independence in the name of life, liberty, and

professional success. Let us rediscover the pursuit of happiness, and let us start at home.

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

NVLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

Innovation Nation

As I write this, I can hear the reaction of some readers to many of the proposals in this essay: It’s all

fine and well for a tenured professor to write about flexible working hours, investment intervals, and

family-comes-first management. But what about the real world? Most American women cannot

demand these things, particularly in a bad economy, and their employers have little incentive to grant

them voluntarily. Indeed, the most frequent reaction I get in putting forth these ideas is that when the

choice is whether to hire a man who will work whenever and wherever needed, or a woman who needs

more flexibility, choosing the man will add more value to the company.

In fact, while many of these issues are hard to quantify and measure precisely, the statistics seem to

tell a different story. A seminal study of 527 U.S. companies, published in the Academy of

Management Journal in 2000, suggests that “organizations with more extensive work-family policies

have higher perceived firm-level performance” among their industry peers. These findings accorded

with a 2003 study conducted by Michelle Arthur at the University of New Mexico. Examining 130

announcements of family-friendly policies in The Wall Street Journal, Arthur found that the

announcements alone significantly improved share prices. In 2011, a study on flexibility in the

workplace by Ellen Galinsky, Kelly Sakai, and Tyler Wigton of the Families and Work Institute showed

that increased flexibility correlates positively with job engagement, job satisfaction, employee retention,

and employee health.

This is only a small sampling from a large and growing literature trying to pin down the relationship

between family-friendly policies and economic performance. Other scholars have concluded that good

family policies attract better talent, which in turn raises productivity, but that the policies themselves

have no impact on productivity. Still others argue that results attributed to these policies are actually a

function of good management overall. What is evident, however, is that many firms that recruit and

train well-educated professional women are aware that when a woman leaves because of bad work-

family balance, they are losing the money and time they invested in her.

Even the legal industry, built around the billable hour, is taking notice. Deborah Epstein Henry, a

former big-firm litigator, is now the president of Flex-Time Lawyers, a national consulting firm focused

partly on strategies for the retention of female attorneys. In her book Law and Reorder, published by

the American Bar Association in 2010, she describes a legal profession “where the billable hour no

longer works”; where attorneys, judges, recruiters, and academics all agree that this system of

compensation has perverted the industry, leading to brutal work hours, massive inefficiency, and highly

inflated costs. The answer—already being deployed in different corners of the industry—is a

combination of alternative fee structures, virtual firms, women-owned firms, and the outsourcing of

discrete legal jobs to other jurisdictions. Women, and Generation X and Y lawyers more generally, are

pushing for these changes on the supply side; clients determined to reduce legal fees and increase

flexible service are pulling on the demand side. Slowly, change is happening.

At the core of all this is self-interest. Losing smart and motivated women not only diminishes a

company’s talent pool; it also reduces the return on its investment in training and mentoring. In trying

to address these issues, some firms are finding out that women’s ways of working may just be better

ways of working, for employees and clients alike.

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

OMLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

Experts on creativity and innovation emphasize the value of encouraging nonlinear thinking and

cultivating randomness by taking long walks or looking at your environment from unusual angles. In

their new book, A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant

Change, the innovation gurus John Seely Brown and Douglas Thomas write, “We believe that

connecting play and imagination may be the single most important step in unleashing the new culture of

learning.”

Space for play and imagination is exactly what emerges when rigid work schedules and hierarchies

loosen up. Skeptics should consider the “California effect.” California is the cradle of American

innovation—in technology, entertainment, sports, food, and lifestyles. It is also a place where people

take leisure as seriously as they take work; where companies like Google deliberately encourage play,

with Ping-Pong tables, light sabers, and policies that require employees to spend one day a week

working on whatever they wish. Charles Baudelaire wrote: “Genius is nothing more nor less than

childhood recovered at will.” Google apparently has taken note.

No parent would mistake child care for childhood. Still, seeing the world anew through a child’s eyes can

be a powerful source of stimulation. When the Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling wrote The Strategy of

Conflict, a classic text applying game theory to conflicts among nations, he frequently drew on child-

rearing for examples of when deterrence might succeed or fail. “It may be easier to articulate the

peculiar difficulty of constraining [a ruler] by the use of threats,” he wrote, “when one is fresh from a

vain attempt at using threats to keep a small child from hurting a dog or a small dog from hurting a

child.”

The books I’ve read with my children, the silly movies I’ve watched, the games I’ve played, questions

I’ve answered, and people I’ve met while parenting have broadened my world. Another axiom of the

literature on innovation is that the more often people with different perspectives come together, the

more likely creative ideas are to emerge. Giving workers the ability to integrate their non-work lives

with their work—whether they spend that time mothering or marathoning—will open the door to a

much wider range of influences and ideas.

Enlisting Men

Perhaps the most encouraging news of all for achieving the sorts of changes that I have proposed is that

men are joining the cause. In commenting on a draft of this article, Martha Minow, the dean of the

Harvard Law School, wrote me that one change she has observed during 30 years of teaching law at

Harvard is that today many young men are asking questions about how they can manage a work-life

balance. And more systematic research on Generation Y confirms that many more men than in the past

are asking questions about how they are going to integrate active parenthood with their professional

lives.

Abstract aspirations are easier than concrete trade-offs, of course. These young men have not yet faced

the question of whether they are prepared to give up that more prestigious clerkship or fellowship,

decline a promotion, or delay their professional goals to spend more time with their children and to

support their partner’s career.

Yet once work practices and work culture begin to evolve, those changes are likely to carry their own

momentum. Kara Owen, the British foreign-service officer who worked a London job from Dublin,

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

ONLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

wrote me in an e-mail:

I think the culture on flexible working started to change the minute the Board of Management

(who were all men at the time) started to work flexibly—quite a few of them started working one

day a week from home.

Men have, of course, become much more involved parents over the past couple of decades, and that,

too, suggests broad support for big changes in the way we balance work and family. It is noteworthy

that both James Steinberg, deputy secretary of state, and William Lynn, deputy secretary of defense,

stepped down two years into the Obama administration so that they could spend more time with their

children (for real).

Going forward, women would do well to frame work-family balance in terms of the broader social and

economic issues that affect both women and men. After all, we have a new generation of young men

who have been raised by full-time working mothers. Let us presume, as I do with my sons, that they

will understand “supporting their families” to mean more than earning money.

I HAVE BEEN BLESSED to work with and be mentored by some extraordinary women. Watching

Hillary Clinton in action makes me incredibly proud—of her intelligence, expertise, professionalism,

charisma, and command of any audience. I get a similar rush when I see a front-page picture of

Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and Angela Merkel, the

chancellor of Germany, deep in conversation about some of the most important issues on the world

stage; or of Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, standing up forcefully for the Syrian

people in the Security Council.

These women are extraordinary role models. If I had a daughter, I would encourage her to look to

them, and I want a world in which they are extraordinary but not unusual. Yet I also want a world in

which, in Lisa Jackson’s words, “to be a strong woman, you don’t have to give up on the things that

define you as a woman.” That means respecting, enabling, and indeed celebrating the full range of

women’s choices. “Empowering yourself,” Jackson said in her speech at Princeton, “doesn’t have to

mean rejecting motherhood, or eliminating the nurturing or feminine aspects of who you are.”

I gave a speech at Vassar last November and arrived in time to wander the campus on a lovely fall

afternoon. It is a place infused with a spirit of community and generosity, filled with benches, walkways,

public art, and quiet places donated by alumnae seeking to encourage contemplation and connection.

Turning the pages of the alumni magazine (Vassar is now coed), I was struck by the entries of older

alumnae, who greeted their classmates with Salve (Latin for “hello”) and wrote witty remembrances

sprinkled with literary allusions. Theirs was a world in which women wore their learning lightly; their

news is mostly of their children’s accomplishments. Many of us look back on that earlier era as a time

when it was fine to joke that women went to college to get an “M.R.S.” And many women of my

generation abandoned the Seven Sisters as soon as the formerly all-male Ivy League universities

became coed. I would never return to the world of segregated sexes and rampant discrimination. But

now is the time to revisit the assumption that women must rush to adapt to the “man’s world” that our

mothers and mentors warned us about.

I continually push the young women in my classes to speak more. They must gain the confidence to

NOLNMLNO ^ååÉJj ~êáÉ=pä~ì ÖÜíÉê=J=t Üó=t çãÉå=píáää=̀ ~å∞í=e ~î É=fí=̂ ää=J=qÜÉ=̂ íä~åíáÅ

OOLOOï ï ï KíÜÉ~íä~åíáÅKÅçã Lã~Ö~òáåÉLéêáåíLOMNOLMTLï ÜóJï çãÉåJëíáääJÅ~åíJÜ~î ÉJáíJ~ääLPMVMOML

value their own insights and questions, and to present them readily. My husband agrees, but he

actually tries to get the young men in his classes to act more like the women—to speak less and listen

more. If women are ever to achieve real equality as leaders, then we have to stop accepting male

behavior and male choices as the default and the ideal. We must insist on changing social policies and

bending career tracks to accommodate our choices, too. We have the power to do it if we decide to, and

we have many men standing beside us.

We’ll create a better society in the process, for all women. We may need to put a woman in the White

House before we are able to change the conditions of the women working at Walmart. But when we do,

we will stop talking about whether women can have it all. We will properly focus on how we can help all

Americans have healthy, happy, productive lives, valuing the people they love as much as the success

they seek.

This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

Copyright © 2012 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.