OzProspect

About Us | Publications | Mailing List | Initiatives | Donations

The Trouble With Today’s CEOs

By Tim Watts

The Age

21 February, 2005

I was chatting to a CEO the other day about Australia’s population. “Too small,” he said. “We need a market double this size if we want to be serious global players.”

Grey-haired and bullish on Australia adopting the US’s high immigration programs, he thinks our relatively small and ageing population is one of the biggest scandals of our times.

This same CEO also wants a more ‘flexible’ workplace. By this he means he wants the freedom to be able to hire and fire employees as the needs of his business ebb and flow, and to drive their productivity in whatever way he can.

What this CEO doesn’t realise is that these two preferences – for a higher population and for a more ‘flexible’ workplace – are directly in conflict.

If my peer group of twenty- and thirty-something couples is any guide, decisions about having children are very strongly influenced by concerns about jobs and incomes. Leslie Cannold (this page February 3) is on the right track – young Australians’ hesitance about having children is in many cases a product of their inability to find a parent-friendly workplace.

For most of the couples I know with children or contemplating children, the issue is not whether to combine work and child-rearing but how. For women and many men of this generation, continuing to work in some capacity while bringing up children is a must.

Most of the couples I know need the income from between 1.5 to 2 jobs to pay their living expenses, HECS debts, and the mortgage or rent. With a child or two the financial needs of a household only get bigger.

Many of these twenty and thirty-somethings also want to work because they enjoy the professional stimulation, the social networks they have at work and because they want to keep their hand in for later on when their children are at school.

But – and this applies to many men as well as women – they don’t want to work a 50 hour week that leaves them no time to see their kids.

Almost universally in my peer group, both men and women want to work part-time in the range of 2-4 days per week, with the remainder spent with their kids.

Almost universally this group also believe they know they can effectively serve their clients or their companies in their jobs on a part-time basis. Some work for themselves and can do this in their own businesses. A handful have open-minded employers and can do this. But most are in rigid organisations led by managers who just don’t take the time to think through the benefits of creating a parent-friendly workplace.

For these managers a ‘flexible’ workplace is one that makes their lives easier not employees’. For them it seems it’s a full time job or no job.

One benefit of a more parent-friendly approach to job-design is the likelihood that the company will attract and retain more highly capable people. “How family-friendly is your company?” is something more people are asking in job interviews.

Another potential advantage is the expansion in the pool of experience which a greater number of employees working part-time can provide. This won’t apply in all fields but if it is managed well, having more wise-heads to contribute can generate better decisions and more creative strategies.

There is no practical barrier in most industries to having a more parent-friendly workplace. Businesses like ANZ which have been experimenting with parent-friendly job design for the last decade have a range of approaches which work across a variety of job types.

What these organisations have found is that information technology is a great enabler. It is much easier in the age of mobile phones and email for people to blend being a great employee and being a great parent.

Another key step is ensuring that client and colleague expectations are managed. If the lines of communication are kept open and there are good back-up plans in place, it is usually possible to accommodate the unpredictable demands of parenting without compromising standards of service or performance.

Often what is required is a rethink of the way jobs have traditionally been performed, with an eye to arranging the flow of work in a manner which allows for flexibility in the timing and the amount of hours worked by the employee.

Government has a role in encouraging CEOs to shift their thinking here. Eliminating fringe benefits tax on child care costs paid by an employer or by an employee via salary sacrifice from their pre-tax income would be a good start. FBT has already been eliminated on employer-run child care centres – why not extend this to all child care costs? More could effort could also be made to recognise, document and celebrate the companies which are experimenting with job-design for parents.

If we want to halt the decline in the fertility rate, the grey haired CEOs who run our workplaces have a crucial role to play.