>From the New York Times:
April 1, 2001
A Trickle-Down Theory for a Shorter Workday
By JOHN D. SOLOMON
The workday of President Bush is so short that even his employees
tease him about it. At the Gridiron Club Dinner, an evening of
irreverent skits and songs in Washington last weekend, Attorney
General John Ashcroft joked that his boss was committed to working
"24/7 24 hours a week, 7 months a year."
In some respects, Mr. Bush's workday is hardly short. He arrives at
his desk around 7:15 a.m. and is out the Oval Office door by 6 p.m.
But his daily calendar usually includes breaks for exercise and other
personal time. He rarely works weekends, often skipping out early on
Fridays. He has instructed the White House staff to avoid long hours.
And he has pointedly encouraged staff members to have lives outside
the office.
Not only is Mr. Bush unabashed about his unconventional work routine
("I am going to answer some questions," he told reporters recently,
"and then I'm going to head home and take a nap."), he also says he
believes that a shorter, more efficient day at the office is a sound
management practice.
The less-is-more approach, however, is not accepted in the executive
suites of most American companies. It conflicts with the current 24/7
American work mentality (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) seemingly
embodied by Mr. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, whose White House
was open for business around the clock. That full-tilt ethic has also
been viewed as part of American industry's successful response to new
competition and globalization and technology.
But with studies showing that Americans now spend more time at work
than the famously industrious Japanese and that one-third of American
adults get less than six and a half hours of sleep a night, Mr. Bush's
shorter day at the office may be viewed as a welcome example by many
Americans who want to slow their work pace. The question is whether
the distinctive schedule of the nation's top manager will trickle down
to corporate America.
Some management experts say it will not, because of the uncertain
economy and ingrained assumptions about work hours. But some contend
that if Mr. Bush is seen as a successful president and manager, there
may be a ripple effect.
"Men stopped wearing hats when John Kennedy went without one," said
Randall L. Tobias, the former chairman of Eli Lilly & Company, who
established family-friendly programs at that company, including
flexible schedules and backup child care. "President Bush has the
bully pulpit and will draw attention to what he does or fails to do."
But can the president and more particularly his staff adhere to the
schedule in the long run? Mr. Bush's insistence on keeping shorter
hours does not mean his subordinates can do the same, said Faith Wohl,
the Clinton administration's director of workplace initiatives and now
president of the Child Care Action Campaign, a nonprofit advocacy
group.
"It will not be viewed as a model if the way the president is able to
achieve a balanced life is to unbalance the lives of others on his
staff," Ms. Wohl said.
So far, though, Mr. Bush has succeeded, said Karen P. Hughes, a
counselor to the president who runs the administration's
communications efforts.
Of course, she said, schedules vary in the White House, depending on
circumstances. There are still late nights for people at all levels
when the president is host for a banquet, for example. But Ms. Hughes
said the hours worked were considered less important than the feeling
among staff members that they had some flexibility for family and
other personal matters.
"The president has made it clear that you will be evaluated on your
results, not whether the light is on in your office at 10 or 11," she
said.
When Mr. Bush asked her recently why she had missed a meeting with a
group of women executives, she said she had no hesitation telling him
that she had taken her 13-year-old son, Robert, to the orthodontist
for a previously scheduled appointment.
"In some corporate environments, a person would not feel comfortable
telling their boss that they had missed a meeting for their son's
orthodontist appointment," she said. It would be nice, she added, "if
this White House can set an example."
Mr. Clinton also came into office with flexible work ideas and made
scheduling allowances for staff members with school- age children. But
his night-owl work habits required that his staff keep similarly long
hours. And his administration, which had championed work-life
initiatives like the Family and Medical Leave Act, had few
senior-ranking women with young children.
Women make up almost half of the senior staff in the Bush
administration. Ms. Hughes, for one, says she intends to leave work at
7 p.m. most nights and 5:30 p.m. on Wednesdays for a "midweek moment"
with her son.
Robert B. Reich, the former labor secretary, argues in his book, "The
Future of Success," that Americans work too hard and describes his own
decision to leave government to bring more balance to his life.
"Bill Clinton worked all hours, and most of the people around him,
including me, did the same," Mr. Reich said, "largely because we knew
he might call at all hours."
But the proposition that less time on the job is better for the bottom
line still faces widespread skepticism.
"To a point, I think most businesses feel that it pays to work people
harder and longer," said Peter Capelli, professor of management at the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and director of
Wharton's Center of Human Resources.
That may be increasingly true in an economic downturn, when less of a
premium is placed on retaining and attracting workers. "If the economy
goes south and the labor market softens, it is very possible that
companies may actually push back on work-life initiatives," Professor
Capelli said.
Donna Klein, vice president for diversity and workplace initiatives at
Marriott International, was skeptical that Mr. Bush's actions would
affect corporate hours, but she said he had identified a common
workplace complaint: unproductive face time. "He is right that hard
work and long hours are not the same," Ms. Klein said, "and presence
does not necessarily equal productivity."
Putting shorter or flexible hours into effect is always complicated by
the varying interests of employees. Some people just enjoy or are
accustomed to working long hours. Ms. Wohl said the change would
require adjustments in deeply held attitudes about work a point
underscored by some reactions to Mr. Bush's schedule.
"It is interesting how the president has been ridiculed by some for
his determination not to work 24 hours a day," Ms. Wohl said. "Working
around the clock is so endemic in our society that people who want to
take a nap or take the weekend off are the object of amusement."
Ms. Wohl said Mr. Bush could have a positive impact if he spoke out
about why limiting hours could lead to better employee performance,
higher retention rates and lower health care costs.
That, Professor Capelli suggested, may even lead to more bottom-up
change. "It may embolden employees to go to their employers and say:
`It works in the White House. Why can't we do it here?' "
[1]Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
Tom Walker
(604) 947-2213
