立即打开
灵活办公有助于职场中的性别平等,应得到女性主义者的支持

灵活办公有助于职场中的性别平等,应得到女性主义者的支持

ERIN GRAU 2023-05-16
灵活办公在社会和道德上都势在必行。

摩根大通CEO杰米·戴蒙、赛富时CEO马克·贝尼奥夫和Meta CEO马克·扎克伯格等都拒绝远程办公,但他们都是旧制度最大的受益者。摄影:MARCO BELLO - 彭博社 - 盖蒂图片社

在我职业生涯的前15年,我每天都要通勤到办公室办公。这意味着在我有了孩子之后,他们并不了解我在职场的贡献。他们所能看见的是我缺席了她们的生活,而不是我在工作中的领导技能。我还错过了许多事情:为了准时参加首次会议,我在她们睡醒前就离开了家门,或者太晚才回家,没有时间听她们讲述白天的精彩经历。

现在,我每周有几天会在家进行融资、招聘和拨打销售电话,女儿们则在隔壁房间里写作业或游戏,于是他们才了解到我工作的实际情况。我希望她们了解了工作及其在人生中的地位,能够对她们未来的人生产生积极影响。

过去几个月,重回办公室运动兴起,但老板们并不了解员工为什么不愿意重回办公室。老板们表示担心生产率、创造力、文化、进步和辅导等问题,甚至认为过去几年的远程办公和混合办公试验反而强调了在现场办公的重要性。华尔街高管史蒂文·拉特纳质疑远程办公的效果,并以赛富时(Salesforce)CEO马克·贝尼奥夫、Meta CEO马克·扎克伯格和摩根大通(JPMorgan)CEO杰米·戴蒙的说法作为理由。最近,OpenAI CEO山姆·阿尔特曼认为远程办公“是科技界在工作方面犯下的错误之一”。

但员工没有类似的感受,这并不意外。一项最新研究显示,员工依旧没有获得公司许可,按照自己的意愿远程办公。从旧制度中受益最大的群体,表现出对改变旧制度最大的焦虑,这并非巧合。但我们不应该将有权有势的男性的感受与事实混为一谈。

虽然女权运动见证了数代人的不懈努力,但事实上挑战社会上性别不平等现象的担子依旧落在了女性肩上。在现代家庭中以及在改变性别角色方面,女性依旧在努力承担一切,尽管CEO们试图维护过时的、适得其反的工作安排。通过重新构思工作的时间、地点甚至工作方式,我们可以朝着实现性别平等取得有意义的进展,解决在公司尤其是大多数高层岗位上,女性和其他不同性别人群代表性严重不足的问题。

我们从1940年代末以来,就沿用了相同的公司工作规范,当时许多家庭只要一份工资收入就能衣食无忧,而且只有三分之一女性在外工作。然而许多情况已经发生了变化(上世纪60年代末,进入劳动力队伍的女性人数创历史记录;1991年安妮塔·希尔参议院举办听证会,听证会的主要内容是因为种族和阶级、互联网革命以及一场疫情的综合影响所掀起的运动,当时的疫情导致数以百万计的劳动者居家,但并没有造成经济下滑),但我们却被告知,唯一的工作方式是恢复与福特T型车发明同时诞生的工作方式。

灵活办公在社会和道德上都势在必行。灵活办公可以帮助留住女性人才,减少职业倦怠,使养育子女变得更容易,并且人们可以履行看护责任。最近对混合办公(现场办公和远程办公)女性的调查显示,88%的受访者相信混合办公的灵活性有助于实现工作场所的平等,有三分之二受访者表示混合办公对她们的职业发展路径产生了积极影响。灵活办公为不同性别的工作者提供了更多职业发展机会,增加了女性领导者的数量,这有利于公司的发展。公司的女性领导者越多,员工的积极性越高,公司盈利能力越强大。

90%的女性希望能远程办公,包括完全远程办公或混合办公,远程办公提高了女性的归属感和心理上的安全感,而且由于与同事之间松散的时间减少,因此减少了微歧视现象。这在有色人种女性、LGBTQ+女性和残疾女性当中表现得更加突出。支持灵活办公和远程办公能力,与性别平等的关系密不可分,并且无论是女性、男性还是边缘性别群体,都将从中受益。

主要养家糊口者的角色正在消失,有29%的异性夫妻收入相同,有16%的异性夫妻女性收入高于男性,但在照顾家人方面,女性投入的时间依旧比男性多2个小时,女性做家务的时间比男性多2.5个小时。无论是居家办公还是在外工作,妈妈们依旧承担了绝大部分照顾家人和做家务的任务,尽管这些工作依旧被严重低估、不受重视并且没有得到足够的报酬。

在同为上班族的异性夫妻中,远程办公可以增加妈妈的有偿劳动和爸爸的家务劳动,有助于提高家庭中的性别平等。居家办公的爸爸经常会承担更多家务和照顾子女的责任,他们的伴侣则更有可能找到工作,并从事更长时间的有偿劳动。此外,从长远来开,妈妈在外工作,可以令子女在经济和社会上受益:女儿更有可能找到工作,成为高管,获得更高收入,而儿子会花更多时间处理家务,照顾家庭成员。

灵活办公确实可能出现问题,尤其如果雇主会给现场办公的员工更多加薪、升值和获得好差事的机会,灵活办公可能加剧薪酬和晋升方面的性别差距。“邻近性偏见”是指我们会无意识地倾向于支持在物理上更靠近我们的人,这是一个陷阱,可能导致按性别和种族划分的员工变成两个阵营,女性和有色人种员工将成为受冷落的阵营。

在个人层面,灵活办公并非总能给员工带来好处。如果你每天只需要走几步路,然后打开笔记本电脑就能开始工作,你的工作时间很可能延长,这会对身心健康产生负面影响,增加工作与家庭的冲突,女性在这方面的问题尤其严重。当你在餐桌上工作的时候,特别是如果你无法或没有能力将子女送入育儿机构,你可能很难像在专门的工作场所中一样保持专注。

但这些缺点值得权衡取舍。灵活办公不成功或者导致CEO们认为灵活办公效果不佳的真正原因是,公司并不重视旨在提高性别平等和改善工作场所的教育、实践与政策,例如带薪休假和辅导项目等。灵活办公确实并非创建性别平等社会的唯一关键所在,但对于属于最边缘群体的上班族而言,灵活办公是更好的选择。

拉特纳自己也承认,混合办公和远程办公数据“没有定论”。灵活办公不应该成为上班族减少工作量的借口,而是让他们更多地享受生活,可以更专注于工作,有更多陪伴家人的时间,更重视家人的身心健康。灵活办公并非拒绝工作,而是抛弃一种对我们没有好处的制度。

公司和CEO们应该负责重新打造“理想的”工作者,重视那些承担了家务和照顾家人责任的员工,支持灵活办公安排和政策,并提高管理者的能力,以应对灵活办公带来的各方面的挑战。

然而,责任不止在CEO身上。所有工作者应该尽可能选择灵活办公,支持这种工作方式,并支持同事按照自身需要选择工作时间和工作地点。

我们必须消除对灵活办公的偏见,防止灵活办公变成另外一种“妈咪轨道”,即属于妈妈们的职业发展路径,虽然提供灵活办公,但却是以牺牲职业发展为代价,更要防止灵活办公变成另外一个版本的“女性属于家庭”这种厌女主义者的陈词滥调。

只要灵活办公不会伴随着惩罚,例如更慢的晋升速度,或者女性被贬低为“粉领族”,它就依旧是女性取得的胜利。与产假一样,为了支持性别平等,以强有力的姿态支持照顾家人的价值,男性也应该可以灵活办公,无需承担任何后果。

三年前,灵活办公属于新鲜事物。两年前,灵活办公变成了常态。现在,灵活办公变得必不可少。我们的子女未来将要步入的职场,有赖于我们为它确定正确的方向。(财富中文网)

本文作者艾琳·格劳是Charter的联合创始人兼首席运营官。Charter是一家未来工作媒体与研究公司。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不能代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

在我职业生涯的前15年,我每天都要通勤到办公室办公。这意味着在我有了孩子之后,他们并不了解我在职场的贡献。他们所能看见的是我缺席了她们的生活,而不是我在工作中的领导技能。我还错过了许多事情:为了准时参加首次会议,我在她们睡醒前就离开了家门,或者太晚才回家,没有时间听她们讲述白天的精彩经历。

现在,我每周有几天会在家进行融资、招聘和拨打销售电话,女儿们则在隔壁房间里写作业或游戏,于是他们才了解到我工作的实际情况。我希望她们了解了工作及其在人生中的地位,能够对她们未来的人生产生积极影响。

过去几个月,重回办公室运动兴起,但老板们并不了解员工为什么不愿意重回办公室。老板们表示担心生产率、创造力、文化、进步和辅导等问题,甚至认为过去几年的远程办公和混合办公试验反而强调了在现场办公的重要性。华尔街高管史蒂文·拉特纳质疑远程办公的效果,并以赛富时(Salesforce)CEO马克·贝尼奥夫、Meta CEO马克·扎克伯格和摩根大通(JPMorgan)CEO杰米·戴蒙的说法作为理由。最近,OpenAI CEO山姆·阿尔特曼认为远程办公“是科技界在工作方面犯下的错误之一”。

但员工没有类似的感受,这并不意外。一项最新研究显示,员工依旧没有获得公司许可,按照自己的意愿远程办公。从旧制度中受益最大的群体,表现出对改变旧制度最大的焦虑,这并非巧合。但我们不应该将有权有势的男性的感受与事实混为一谈。

虽然女权运动见证了数代人的不懈努力,但事实上挑战社会上性别不平等现象的担子依旧落在了女性肩上。在现代家庭中以及在改变性别角色方面,女性依旧在努力承担一切,尽管CEO们试图维护过时的、适得其反的工作安排。通过重新构思工作的时间、地点甚至工作方式,我们可以朝着实现性别平等取得有意义的进展,解决在公司尤其是大多数高层岗位上,女性和其他不同性别人群代表性严重不足的问题。

我们从1940年代末以来,就沿用了相同的公司工作规范,当时许多家庭只要一份工资收入就能衣食无忧,而且只有三分之一女性在外工作。然而许多情况已经发生了变化(上世纪60年代末,进入劳动力队伍的女性人数创历史记录;1991年安妮塔·希尔参议院举办听证会,听证会的主要内容是因为种族和阶级、互联网革命以及一场疫情的综合影响所掀起的运动,当时的疫情导致数以百万计的劳动者居家,但并没有造成经济下滑),但我们却被告知,唯一的工作方式是恢复与福特T型车发明同时诞生的工作方式。

灵活办公在社会和道德上都势在必行。灵活办公可以帮助留住女性人才,减少职业倦怠,使养育子女变得更容易,并且人们可以履行看护责任。最近对混合办公(现场办公和远程办公)女性的调查显示,88%的受访者相信混合办公的灵活性有助于实现工作场所的平等,有三分之二受访者表示混合办公对她们的职业发展路径产生了积极影响。灵活办公为不同性别的工作者提供了更多职业发展机会,增加了女性领导者的数量,这有利于公司的发展。公司的女性领导者越多,员工的积极性越高,公司盈利能力越强大。

90%的女性希望能远程办公,包括完全远程办公或混合办公,远程办公提高了女性的归属感和心理上的安全感,而且由于与同事之间松散的时间减少,因此减少了微歧视现象。这在有色人种女性、LGBTQ+女性和残疾女性当中表现得更加突出。支持灵活办公和远程办公能力,与性别平等的关系密不可分,并且无论是女性、男性还是边缘性别群体,都将从中受益。

主要养家糊口者的角色正在消失,有29%的异性夫妻收入相同,有16%的异性夫妻女性收入高于男性,但在照顾家人方面,女性投入的时间依旧比男性多2个小时,女性做家务的时间比男性多2.5个小时。无论是居家办公还是在外工作,妈妈们依旧承担了绝大部分照顾家人和做家务的任务,尽管这些工作依旧被严重低估、不受重视并且没有得到足够的报酬。

在同为上班族的异性夫妻中,远程办公可以增加妈妈的有偿劳动和爸爸的家务劳动,有助于提高家庭中的性别平等。居家办公的爸爸经常会承担更多家务和照顾子女的责任,他们的伴侣则更有可能找到工作,并从事更长时间的有偿劳动。此外,从长远来开,妈妈在外工作,可以令子女在经济和社会上受益:女儿更有可能找到工作,成为高管,获得更高收入,而儿子会花更多时间处理家务,照顾家庭成员。

灵活办公确实可能出现问题,尤其如果雇主会给现场办公的员工更多加薪、升值和获得好差事的机会,灵活办公可能加剧薪酬和晋升方面的性别差距。“邻近性偏见”是指我们会无意识地倾向于支持在物理上更靠近我们的人,这是一个陷阱,可能导致按性别和种族划分的员工变成两个阵营,女性和有色人种员工将成为受冷落的阵营。

在个人层面,灵活办公并非总能给员工带来好处。如果你每天只需要走几步路,然后打开笔记本电脑就能开始工作,你的工作时间很可能延长,这会对身心健康产生负面影响,增加工作与家庭的冲突,女性在这方面的问题尤其严重。当你在餐桌上工作的时候,特别是如果你无法或没有能力将子女送入育儿机构,你可能很难像在专门的工作场所中一样保持专注。

但这些缺点值得权衡取舍。灵活办公不成功或者导致CEO们认为灵活办公效果不佳的真正原因是,公司并不重视旨在提高性别平等和改善工作场所的教育、实践与政策,例如带薪休假和辅导项目等。灵活办公确实并非创建性别平等社会的唯一关键所在,但对于属于最边缘群体的上班族而言,灵活办公是更好的选择。

拉特纳自己也承认,混合办公和远程办公数据“没有定论”。灵活办公不应该成为上班族减少工作量的借口,而是让他们更多地享受生活,可以更专注于工作,有更多陪伴家人的时间,更重视家人的身心健康。灵活办公并非拒绝工作,而是抛弃一种对我们没有好处的制度。

公司和CEO们应该负责重新打造“理想的”工作者,重视那些承担了家务和照顾家人责任的员工,支持灵活办公安排和政策,并提高管理者的能力,以应对灵活办公带来的各方面的挑战。

然而,责任不止在CEO身上。所有工作者应该尽可能选择灵活办公,支持这种工作方式,并支持同事按照自身需要选择工作时间和工作地点。

我们必须消除对灵活办公的偏见,防止灵活办公变成另外一种“妈咪轨道”,即属于妈妈们的职业发展路径,虽然提供灵活办公,但却是以牺牲职业发展为代价,更要防止灵活办公变成另外一个版本的“女性属于家庭”这种厌女主义者的陈词滥调。

只要灵活办公不会伴随着惩罚,例如更慢的晋升速度,或者女性被贬低为“粉领族”,它就依旧是女性取得的胜利。与产假一样,为了支持性别平等,以强有力的姿态支持照顾家人的价值,男性也应该可以灵活办公,无需承担任何后果。

三年前,灵活办公属于新鲜事物。两年前,灵活办公变成了常态。现在,灵活办公变得必不可少。我们的子女未来将要步入的职场,有赖于我们为它确定正确的方向。(财富中文网)

本文作者艾琳·格劳是Charter的联合创始人兼首席运营官。Charter是一家未来工作媒体与研究公司。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不能代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

For the first 15 years of my career, I commuted into an office every day. This meant that by the time I had children, my workplace contributions were invisible to them. All they noticed was my absence, not my leadership skills at work. I missed a lot, too: Some days I left the house before they woke up to make it to my first meeting, or walked in the door too late to hear the highs and lows of their days.

Now that I take fundraising, hiring, and sales calls from home a few days each week while my daughters do homework or play in the next room, they have exposure to the reality of my work. I hope the lessons they are learning about work and its place in a full life will have a positive impact on them in the years to come.

As the return-to-office movement gained steam over the past few months, bosses don’t understand why people aren’t returning to the office. They’re voicing concerns over productivity, creativity, culture, advancement, and mentoring–and even asserting that the remote and hybrid work experiment of the past few years has reinforced the critical importance of sitting in an office. Wall Street executive Steven Rattner questioned the effectiveness of remote work, relying on statements from Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon to further his argument. More recently, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman called remote work “one of the tech industry’s work mistakes.”

It’s probably not a surprise that employees don’t feel similarly–new research shows that employees still aren’t permitted to work remotely as much as they’d like. And it is hardly a coincidence that the demographic which benefited most from the old system has also expressed the most anxiety about changing it. But we shouldn’t confuse the feelings of powerful men with facts.

Despite all of the efforts of the feminist movement that have spanned generations, the reality is that it still largely falls on women to challenge gender inequities in society. Women are still trying to do it all, despite CEOs preserving work arrangements that are outdated and counterproductive when it comes to modern families and changing gender roles. By reimagining when, where, and even how we work, we can make meaningful progress toward gender equality and address the dramatic underrepresentation of women and people of all genders in our companies, particularly at the most senior levels.

We’ve been stuck in the same corporate work norms since the late 1940s when many families could live comfortably on one paycheck and just a third of women worked outside of the home. While so much else has changed (women entering the labor force in record numbers in the late 1960s; the Anita Hill Senate hearing in 1991 that centered the movement around the compounding effects of race and class, the internet revolution, a pandemic that sent millions of workers home and yet didn’t crater the economy), we are being told the only way to work is to return to a schedule invented with the Model T.

The case for flexible work has a social and moral imperative. It helps retain women, reduces burnout, and makes it easier to have children and deliver on caregiving responsibilities. According to a recent survey of female hybrid workers that combine in-office and remote work, 88% believe the flexibility of hybrid work is an equalizer in the workplace, and two-thirds say it has had a positive impact on their career growth path. Flexible work provides greater opportunities for career advancement across gender lines and increases the number of women in leadership, which is good for business. Companies with more women in leadership have more engaged workers and are more profitable.

Ninety percent of women want the ability to work remotely, including fully remote or hybrid-work options, and with it have experienced an increased sense of belonging, greater psychological safety, and, thanks to less unstructured time with colleagues, fewer microaggressions. This is even more pronounced for women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities. Support for flexibility and the ability to work remotely is inextricably tied to gender equality and benefits us all: women, men, and marginalized genders.

The primary breadwinner role is disappearing, with 29% of opposite-sex couples earning the same amount of money and women out-earning their husband in 16% of marriages, and yet, women still spend two more hours on caregiving and 2.5 more hours on housework. Whether a stay-at-home mother or one that works outside the home, mothers still take on the lion’s share of caregiving and domestic responsibilities, even though that work continues to be woefully undervalued, underappreciated, and undercompensated.

For opposite-sex couples with two wage earners, remote work supports gender equality at home by increasing a mother’s paid labor and increasing a father’s domestic labor. Fathers who work from home more frequently perform a greater share of housework and childcare, and their partners are more likely to be employed and work more hours in paid labor. There’s more: Children benefit long term economically and socially when their mother works outside of the home: daughters are more likely to be employed, be supervisors, and earn more, and sons spend more time doing chores around the house and taking care of family members.

To be sure, flexibility can go wrong, especially if employers reward the people who spend more time in the office with all of the raises, promotions, and plum assignments. In such a scenario, flexibility could inadvertently contribute to a gender gap in pay and advancement. Proximity bias, the unconscious tendency to favor those that are physically closer to us, is a real pitfall and can lead to two classes of workers that break down by gender and race, with the less favored class being women and workers of color.

At the individual level, the benefits of flexibility for employees don’t always hold. When your commute only requires you to walk a few feet and open your laptop, it’s easy to extend your work day, which can have a negative impact on well-being and increase conflict between work and family, particularly for women. Anyone who has tried to work from the middle of their kitchen table knows how challenging it can be to focus when you’re not in a dedicated workplace, especially if you can’t access or afford childcare.

But these downsides are worth the tradeoffs. The real reason flexible work arrangements haven’t worked or have led to a perception among CEOs of poorer outcomes is that companies haven’t invested in the education, practices, and policies which promote gender equity and improve their workplaces, such as paid leave and mentorship programs. Flexible work certainly isn’t the only key to a more gender-equal society but it’s a hell of a lot better for the most marginalized workers.

The data on hybrid and remote work arrangements is “at best inconclusive,” which Rattner himself concedes. Flexible work isn’t an excuse for workers to do less work, but rather for them to do more life–more focused work, more family time, and a greater focus on their well-being. It’s not a rejection of work, but a renouncement of a system that hasn’t served us well.

It’s within the power of companies and CEOs to recast the “ideal” worker, value workers who shoulder domestic and caregiving responsibilities, support flexible work arrangements and policies and equip managers to lead through the multidimensional challenges of flexible work.

However, the onus is not just on CEOs. All workers, when and where possible, can support flexible work by choosing it for themselves and empowering colleagues to work when and where they need to.

We must destigmatize flexible work and prevent it from becoming another mommy track, a career path for mothers that offers flexible work at the expense of career advancement–or even worse, another version of the tired misogynist trope “women belong in the house.”

Flexible work will continue to be a win for women as long as it doesn’t come with penalties, like slower paths to promotions or relegating women to pink-collar fields. And like parental leave, men need to take it without consequence, too, in order to support gender equity and make a powerful statement about the value of caregiving.

Three years ago, flexible work was novel. Two years ago, it was normal. Today, it’s necessary. Our future workplaces–the ones my children and yours will inherit–rely on us to get this right.

Erin Grau is the co-founder and Chief Operating Officer of Charter, a future-of-work media and research company.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

热读文章
热门视频
扫描二维码下载财富APP