Last month’s issue of Wired Magazine featured an article by Jonah Lehrer detailing the effects of certain kinds of workplace stress on the immune system. “Under Pressure” discussed the work of Dr. Robert Sapolsky, a professor of Biology and Neurology at Stanford University, as well as summarized several other studies from around the world – revealing an important link between stress, power, and wellbeing.

Add that to a new report by Gallup showing how wellbeing affects employee engagement (especially in this current economic environment), and the issue of stress becomes even more pertinent for employers. According to Sapolsky (and Lehrer), stress negatively impacts your immune system, making you more at risk of both the sniffles and long term chronic illnesses.

But it’s not just any stress. Sapolsky is specifically talking about the kind of stress that comes from feeling powerless in one’s job or social position. And with layoffs, paycuts, and unemployment we’re all facing right now, many employees are beginning to feel the push.

Stress and Power

According to Sapolsky, stress can cause a “staggeringly diverse” range of ailments:

“…from the common cold and lower-back pain to Alzheimer’s disease, major depressive disorder, and heart attack. Stress hollows out our bones and atrophies our muscles. It triggers adult-onset diabetes and is a leading cause of male impotence. In fact, numerous studies of human longevity in developed countries have found that psychosocial factors such as stress are the single most important variable in determining the length of a life. It’s not that genes and risk factors like smoking don’t matter. It’s that our levels of stress matter more.”

Frightened yet? And, Sapolsky says, stress makes medical care less effective as well. Lehrer writes, “Antibiotics, for instance, are far less effective when our immune system is suppressed by stress; that fancy heart surgery will work only if the patient can learn to shed stress.” But it’s a specific kind of stress that causes us to get (and stay) so sick.

According to Sapolsky, and a number of other studies cited within the article, the stress of feeling powerless or downtrodden with one’s situation is the most dangerous to one’s health. For example, Lehrer cites a 25 year longitudinal study by Michael Marmot, a professor of epidemiology and public health at University College London of civil servants in the strictly hierarchical British bureaucracy. He writes:

“After tracking thousands of civil servants for decades, Marmot was able to demonstrate that between the ages of 40 and 64, workers at the bottom of the hierarchy had a mortality rate four times higher than that of people at the top. Even after accounting for genetic risks and behaviors like smoking and binge drinking, civil servants at the bottom of the pecking order still had nearly double the mortality rate of those at the top.”

While individuals at the top of the ladder may feel a lot of stress in their jobs, they also have a lot of power over what they do. Individuals on the lower rungs may be equally stressed – but they don’t have much power at all. In fact, “getting promoted from the lowest level in the British civil service reduced the probability of heart disease by up to 13 percentage points. Climbing the social ladder makes us live longer.”

Lehrer says this corresponds with the rate of heart disease in female office workers. When women first entered the workforce, it was expected that workplace stress would cause the rate of heart disease in women to increase significantly. But it didn’t. In fact, he writes:

“Working women didn’t have more heart attacks. There were, however, two glaring statistical exceptions to the rule: Women developed significantly more heart disease if they performed menial clerical work or when they had an unsupportive boss. The work, in other words, wasn’t the problem. It was the subordination.”

Stress-induced sickness is, in large part, due to control or the lack thereof. According to the article:

“Researchers call it the “demand-control” model of stress, in which the damage caused by chronic stress depends not just on the demands of the job but on the extent to which we can control our response to those demands.”

Lehrer continues, “While a relentlessly intense job like a senior executive position leads to a slightly increased risk of heart disease and death, a job with no control is significantly more dangerous.”

Empowering, Engaging, and Improving Wellness

Is the demand-control model of workplace stress making employees more sick than ever? It’s an important question – and not just because of rising health care costs and an increasingly sharp laser-focus on productivity. Healthy, empowered employees are the ones who will stick with your company through tough times – and as the demand for high-performing employees increases, employee engagement is more and more critical.

According to an August Gallup Management Journal article, engagement and wellbeing go hand in hand. In “Engagement, Wellbeing, and the Downturn,” Jennifer Robison summarized the results of a March 2009 survey of engagement and wellbeing of US workers.

“Workers’ perception of their wellbeing also differed depending on their engagement level. In terms of their wellbeing, among engaged workers, 60% were thriving, 37% were struggling, and only 3% were suffering. Among workers who were not engaged, 47% were thriving and 48% were struggling, while 5% were suffering. Actively disengaged workers, on the other hand, showed much higher percentages of suffering and struggling wellbeing levels: only 28% were thriving, while 60% were struggling and 12% were suffering.”

How can employers engage their employees in this economy, and thereby improve wellbeing? Robison writes:

“There are many ways managers and executives can help employees manage their stress: frequent, honest, and informative communication; involving the workforce in understanding new strategies and explaining how they’re essential to the new plans; an emphasis on recognition for good work; and a focus on hope. ‘Everything we’ve seen suggests that trust, compassion, stability, and hope are what people need from leaders in times of trouble,’ says Jim Harter, Ph.D., Gallup’s chief scientist of workplace management and wellbeing and coauthor of 12: The Elements of Great Managing.”

It seems simple: make your employees feel valuable. Communicate what the company is doing and why they are an important part. In other words, make them feel empowered. It will go a long way in keeping them in the fold, and might even help them stay healthy and live longer.

Does the average maximum-security corrections officer enjoy their job more than you do?

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s national 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, odds are they just might.

Of the 250,000 full-time, federal employees from 82 government agencies (including the Department of Justice, which staffs maximum-security prisons) participating in the anonymous survey, 92 percent felt their job was important, and 86 percent reported enjoying the work.

Compare that with a New York Times report in May that job satisfaction for the average U.S. worker is at an all-time low of 45 percent, down 16 points from where it was in 1987.

A Gallup poll released earlier this year found that more than two-thirds of employed Americans are “not engaged” or “unengaged” in the workplace.

But what is it about a government job that seems to satisfy those on the federal payroll more than employees in the private sector?

Some observers feel it may have to do with the budget tightening that has been a consequence of the current economic recession.
“Everybody who still has a job is working even more, because companies are laying people off and not replacing the positions,” said Rebecca Frick, an administrative assistant for children’s clothing label Osh Kosh B’Gosh. “Those left are doing more for the same amount of money.”

Frick herself was drawn to the prospect of working in the public sector, but the kind of government position she wanted required more additional education than she could afford.
“I seriously considered it,” Frick said. “But when I did the cost-benefit analysis, it wasn’t feasible.”

But although government jobs may be insulated from many of the cutbacks and layoffs that occur in the private sector, the system of professional rewards within the federal ranks is an area of contention, according to the 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. Only 27 percent of the participants felt pay raises are based on performance, and just a quarter responded that those with a poor work performance are penalized.

Even John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, admitted in an open letter posted to his agency’s website that the reward system for federal employees is an area that the survey shows needs improvement.

“Performance management, including the management of poor performers, and the promotion process are areas of concern,” wrote Berry.

However, few would argue that the private sector holds the monopoly on high performance on the job. One area of the federal government where employees have shown considerable productivity is within the armed forces.

A Gallup poll taken from Aug. 1, 2009 to June 15 of this year lists the percentage of active duty military personnel who are “thriving” at their job at 68%, as compared to 58% of all U.S. workers. That percentage among soldiers is the same for those who have been deployed in combat and those who haven’t.

The devotion that many in the public sector feel towards their work can produce greater results than for those employees chasing titles or wealth, according to Andrea Girolamo, managing editor of Kitchen and Bath Design News.

“I worked the last six years in publishing,” Girolamo said. “I thought that this was what I wanted to do. After a few years of climbing the professional ladder, I feel an emptiness regarding the work; like its not helping anyone in the larger sense. It’s just helping me to get a paycheck.”

Girolamo is in the process of earning her master’s degree in environmental science with the hope of attaining a federal job. One major benefit she sees in the public sector is the way in which the organizations are run.

“They have salary levels and very organized pay raise systems,” she said. “Structure helps morale. I think that’s one thing that most private sector jobs lack: a corporate structure that makes sense for the employees.”

According to New York City Department of Transportation employee Dave Volano, the level of job satisfaction among government workers could be due to the fact that you get to see the results of your labor.

“There’s an agenda to fill,” he said. “We have a mission, and we can see the work we do actually get put into place.”

Although he currently works for the city, Volano has also been on the federal payroll as a crew leader for the U.S. Census Bureau. He hopes to stay in the public sector because of the benefits and stability that seem to be increasingly harder to find in civilian jobs.

But even he was surprised about the level of job engagement within the government that the 2010 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey revealed.

“I had no idea that government workers were that satisfied,” Volano said.

And although some may be skeptical of whether 92 percent of federal employees truly believe in the significance of their job, for Girolamo it’s an inspiring statistic.

“That’s what I’m looking for; to be in that 92 percent that feels satisfied with the importance of their work,” she said. “I want to feel that way.”

From the perspective of a concerned consumer, the big oil companies response to the recent Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico leaves something to be desired. At first glance, what should’ve inspired a thorough review of their safety regulations has instead brought only reassurances of how they will clean up the mess. This concerned consumer is left wondering how such an environmental tragedy can be prevented in the future and if it is even possible for the progressive oil industry to regulate itself with internal oversight – what about the company’s people?

In his 2010 AGM speech to shareholders in London on April 15th, BP Chief Executive of Oil and Energy Tony Hayward claimed, “Safety remains our number one priority and I’m pleased to report we can see clear progress.”

What followed this claim was a reassuring percentage of company progress and a thorough account of all the ways in the which BP has grown in the past year. Except for those few sentences about safety, however, Hayward didn’t return to the subject with more detail. He finished his speech by stating “Of course the future looks challenging. It always does.” What these words reveal, on the eve of disaster, is either a general disregard for the importance of safety in favor of positive quarterly statements or a genuine ignorance of the risk to BP. Five days after Hayward’s speech, 11 people died in the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the first million gallons of crude oil began flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Disregarding Safety Means Disregarding Human Capital

To date, the official response of BP is to assess the potential cost of such a tragedy and provide $20 billion to cover any claims from the people effected. On July 5th BP’s press release posted on their website gave a detailed account of their progress in cleaning up as well as containing the spill. What this report lacked was any mention of organizing an internal oversight that intends to discover the cause of the accident and prevent it from ever happening again. The current priority of the company remains reactive – focused on repairing damage already caused and preventing more damage from the spill.

Based on the speech of Iain Conn, Chief Executive of BP’s Refining and Marketing, to the World Forum on Enterprise and Environment at Oxford on June 29th 2010, the focus of BP is also on redirecting the blame. While his mention of the Deepwater Horizon incident was only a small part of his speech, Conn stated that it “was a tragic accident and should not have happened.” After a carefully veiled disclaimer that BP is “only one of many parties to this catastropic incident,” he continued to explain BP’s clean-up efforts in the Gulf of Mexico and said, “At this moment over 39,000 people are involved in the response, including many BP staff and contractors, and 110 planes and almost 5,000 vessels are engaged on this task.” It is this statement which summarizes BP’s efforts to neither accept the full blame of the situation while at the same time not placing the blame on any one corporation.

After briefly reassuring his audience of the money and manpower BP had invested so far, Conn then segued into his speech about the future demands for energy and how BP plans to more efficiently provide for those demands. Most notably missing from Iain Conn’s speech is BP’s decisive plan to conduct their own in-depth safety review, except for a brief mention that “a number of investigations are in progress by the relevant U.S. authorities and within the company. It will take time to establish a clear understanding of the events that took place and the lessons to be learned.” Whether the general public, as well as BP’s own workforce, has been reassured by similar vague references to investigations is yet to be seen.

Chevron’s Response

Looking at only BP’s response to the safety risks brought to light by the Deepwater Horizon explosion, you might believe that the oil industry wasn’t focused on developing more strict internal oversight regulations.

However, the speech of Chevron CEO, John S. Watson, made before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 15th, 2010 was specifically intended to address the safety issues concerning the oil industry, reveals, at least, a top level focus on employee engagement. “At Chevron,” Watson said, “one goal overrides all others: making sure everyone goes home safe every day.” It is this direct explanation of what Chevron has done to ensure the safety of its employees and oil rigs, both during and after the Deepwater Horizon accident, that makes BP’s similar reassurances sound less concerned about future safety and more concerned about subduing public criticism about their clean-up efforts.

“We require continuous training,” Watson explained to the House when specifically referring to Chevron’s safety record. Watson continued even further to address the future safety regulations which may be required as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill. “To that end,” Watson said, “we must act quickly to implement the recommendations made by the Joint Industry Task Force to ensure that all companies are operating with the same high standards of safety and reliability.”

Compared to the vague promises of BP to eventually address the weakness of their internal safety oversight, Chevron’s response is to take immediate action. “Mr. Chairman,” Watson concludes in his speech, “we must learn from this accident and we must make sure it never happens again. My commitment to you is that Chevron will do everything in our power to see that it doesn’t.”

Whether Chevron will be the forerunner of oil companies soon to be weighed down by stricter safety regulations, implemented not only internally but by the U.S. Department of Interior as well, is yet to be proven. For the concerned consumer, however, John S. Watson’s promise on behalf of Chevron makes a more hopeful case for the oil industry and its ability to supply energy resources to the public, and its own employees, without costing lives.

Green roofs have been growing in popularity for a few years now – with companies like Wal-Mart, Ford Motor Company, and GAP sporting vegetation-covered roofs on corporate headquarters, manufacturing plants, and retail outlets.

According to this New York Times article, there are many benefits to green roofs, although few of the benefits directly impact employees in the short term, in the workplace itself. Kate Galbreth writes:

“As well as giving workers from surrounding skyscrapers something pleasant to gaze at, green roofs help keep the city cool, and also filter stormwater so that it does not overwhelm drains.”

These are great benefits, of course, and today’s employees are calling for more environmentally responsible policies and actions at their companies. But your roof can do more.

Planting Rooftops for Employee Wellness

Last week the New York Times reported on the rise in popularity of corporate vegetable gardens. Kim Severson writes,

“As companies have less to spend on raises, health benefits and passes to the water park, a fashionable new perk is emerging: all the carrots and zucchini employees can grow.”

“Carved from rolling green office park turf or tucked into containers on rooftops and converted smoking areas, these corporate plots of dirt spring from growing attention to sustainability and a rising interest in gardening. But they also reflect an economy that calls for creative ways to build workers’ morale and health.”

In a major city like New York or London, where corporate campuses are measured in storeys rather than acreage, your skyscraper’s rooftop may have to serve as the planting ground for those carrots and zucchini. The garden rooftop provides the same benefits as the run-of-the-mill green roof (scenery, stormwater mitigation, and insulation), with the additional perks of free, fresh produce and the calming aspects many people seem to gain from gardening, as well as a few extra minutes of sunshine for corporate farmers.

Peggy Skinner, an Aveda employee at the company’s Minneapolis headquarters told Severson, “It does seem like work, but it’s a different kind of work from our regular workday.”

While the article notes several challenges presented by corporate gardens – such as motivating employees to stay involved with the project, health and safety concerns, and the simple question of what to wear on those days when one will be digging in the dirt – the benefits often outweigh the costs.

According to Severson:

“Tammy Binette, 40, arrives at the Quincy branch [of Harvard Pilgrim] 15 minutes before her 7 a.m. receptionist shift so she can water the crops. She harvests at lunch and sometimes drives extra produce to the local food bank.”

“Since all the beds are raised and the paths between them well tended, Ms. Binette just goes out in her dressy work shoes, taking them off and walking barefoot in the grass on nice days.”

A 15 minute barefoot break may not be appealing to everyone, but but many companies are finding that the short time spent outdoors is good for employee morale and productivity, and the fresh vegetables are one step in the right direction when it comes to employee wellness efforts.

From Green Roofs to Cool Roofs

Which vehicle would you prefer to climb into after its been sitting in a hot parking lot all day? A white one or a black one? The black one will be hotter because it’s absorbed the heat from the sun all afternoon. The white one will be cooler, because white has reflected that sunlight away.

Think of it this way: Roofs are (usually) black or gray, or dark colored. And they’re hot. Glaciers, on the other hand, are white, and of course, nice and cool.

According to Felicity Barringer’s article “By Degrees – White Roofs Catch On as Energy Cost Cutters,” turning your roof white can help save energy big time.

She writes:

“…Art Rosenfeld, a member of the California Energy Commission who has been campaigning for cool roofs since the 1980s, argues that turning all of the world’s roofs “light” over the next 20 years could save the equivalent of 24 billion metric tons in carbon dioxide emissions.”

“’That is what the whole world emitted last year,’ Mr. Rosenfeld said. ‘So, in a sense, it’s like turning off the world for a year.’”

As part of its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030, New York City is implementing the NYC °Cool Roofs program, with volunteers working to to coat nearly a quarter of a million square feet of city-owned rooftops with the reflective white paint. According to a press release:

“A cool roof absorbs 80 percent less heat than traditional dark colored roofs and can lower roof temperatures by up to 60 degrees and indoor temperatures by 10 to 20 degrees on hot days. The decrease in temperature reduces the need for air conditioning, lowering electric bills and reducing energy consumption.”

Saving energy and, on a broader scale, reducing ambient air temperatures, cool roofs can help your company save money and engage with sustainability-minded employees. It’s an idea that makes sense.

Judging people on the basis of their physical looks is a fact of reality these days. Evidence also suggests that the culture of “lookism” within society now has such a foothold in the workplace that a person’s physical appearance can have as much influence on his or her career prospects as his or her performance in the office or boardroom. Whilst very few organisations will openly admit it, many businesses recruit, retain or promote employees on the basis of their attractiveness or how their appearance best complies with the image the organisation wishes to present. In certain circumstances, this can lead to job applicants and employees being discriminated against or harassed in the workplace purely on the basis of how they look.

It is a depressing thought that besides any other challenges women might face in the workplace, their progression up the career ladder might be more dependent on their looks than their brains or achievements. However, there is strong statistical evidence to show that women who wear make-up in business get better jobs and are promoted more quickly. In a survey reported in The Times last year, 64% of directors interviewed believed that women who wore make-up in the workplace look more professional, lending support to the theory that women are more likely to benefit career wise if they conform to this ideology.

The Guardian published a similar report which concluded that “attractive applicants have a better chance of getting better paid jobs.” The article also quoted a survey which found that women spend one fifth of their earnings on trying to look good in the workplace in the belief that their image will play a significant role in their career path.

Look Policies and Discrimination

An increasing number of organisations now have written “look policies” as part of their standard employment documentation and some even award prizes for staff whose appearance best represents the company’s image. Whilst “look policies” are most commonly found in the retail, beauty, leisure and hospitality industries, employers who do not have an express “look policy” may still subconsciously recruit, retain or promote staff based in part on the way they look and whether their appearance helps to maintain and promote the organisation’s image. People also tend to be comfortable recruiting or promoting people like themselves or which conform with their own stereotypes about how a person should look which can lead to a discriminatory homogenous staff, however unintentional.

“Look policies,” whether express or implied can therefore suggest that an employer positively discriminates against individuals who have certain physical characteristics or favours people based on how they look to the detriment of others. Females can be just as guilty as men in terms of judging job applicants and colleagues and whether their appearance complies with their own expectations of how a person should look in the workplace. Whereas there is nothing wrong with expecting staff to dress or present themselves in a certain way, a number of cases have emerged in recent years where an employer’s assessment about how a person looks in the workplace has resulted in a claim for discrimination or harassment.

In a survey carried out by Personnel Today, 75% of those interviewed considered a person’s blonde hair to be an acceptable topic of banter in the workplace, whilst 65% considered jokes about women having large breasts fair game. In this age of political correctness these results are at first glance surprising, but not when considered against the continuing backdrop of claims brought by women (often in very senior positions) who claim to have been sexually harassed or discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of their appearance.

“Look policies” are only unlawful, however, if they discriminate against any individual or particular groups on the basis of their physical appearance. Further, in order to be eligible to bring a looks-based claim, the person bringing the claim must have one or more of the “prohibited grounds” upon which to base the claim including sex, pregnancy or maternity leave, race, religion or belief, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or civil partnership status or gender reassignment. A person will not be able to bring a claim on the basis of their blonde hair or body shape for example, unless there is an underlying discriminatory reason. However, if a woman is treated as less intelligent in the workplace because of her blonde hair or is teased about her bodily assets, then there may well be potential for a sexual harassment claim.

A Few Lookism Cases

The issue of lookism in the workplace and whether it can be justified was brought to the forefront last year thanks to the much publicised case involving Abercrombie & Fitch. Many businesses will, as a result of this case, have had their awareness heightened to the risks of having a “look policy” and of consciously or subconsciously hiring or promoting staff on the basis of how they look. Whilst the Abercrombie & Fitch case was brought on the ground of disability discrimination, ‘looks based’ claims can take many forms.

In June 2009 L’Oreal in France was fined 30,000 Euros after being found guilty of discriminating against job applicants following the disclosure of faxes it sent to a recruitment agency stating that it was seeking job applicants who were French white nationals, aged 18-22 and a dress size 8-12. Whilst extreme, this case showed the propensity of some employers to engage only those staff whose appearance matches the corporate image the company wishes to present.

The UK has seen a number of successful ‘looks based’ claims brought on the basis of age discrimination. One of the first such cases brought after the introduction of the age discrimination laws in 2006, involved a 19 year old woman who was told by her employer she looked too young to do her job and to deal with members of the exclusive private members club where she worked on the basis that its members might query her experience or ability to deal with certain matters.

Conversely, there has been a steady flow of claims in the last year brought by employees from the banking industry who claim that upon reaching the ripe old age of 40 or just over, they were put out to pasture by their employer in favour of younger employees. Whilst the outcome of these cases has yet to be decided and the banks are unlikely to admit to any such practices, it goes without saying that if an employee is forced out or passed over for promotion because they are considered to look too old then this will amount to unlawful age discrimination. Whilst ageism affects men and women alike there is a growing belief among female executives that the main threat to them is not their male counterparts but younger women rising through the ranks who do not only look the part but who have youth on their side.

Whilst it appears that lookism in the workplace is here to stay and we can expect to see many more looks based claims in the future, some employers might be able to argue that there is a genuine justification to require staff to look a certain way. However, the case law on the matter shows how inherently difficult looks based claims can be to defend as well as attracting publicity and expensive litigation that employers could well do without.

Helen Crossland is an associate solicitor at Sprecher Grier Halberstam LLP.

At a certain point last year, employees at my company started cracking jokes that there was something in the water. Then certain nosier colleagues began examining waistlines for signs of growth. At first the phenomenon seemed contained to a single department, with almost a third of the employees in one stage of pregnancy or another. But then the situation spread to other divisions as well – it seemed like a corporate baby boom had arrived.

As a colleague and a friend, I love meeting the new babies in the office for the first time, as new parents proudly debut their little bundle around the cubicles. As a Human Resources professional, a baby boom presents a set of business challenges that can be difficult without some innovative solutions. Pregnancies require some flexibility from employers: they result in not only a small new little person for parents to balance with a career path, but also lots of time off needed for doctor’s visits, discomfort and lower productivity, long periods of time off, increased insurance premiums, and sometimes, a brain drain as employees leave to stay home with children. How can a company best be prepared to meet these challenges?

The odds are somewhat against us in the US, for employers and employees alike. All other developed nations have some form of paid leave available to employees paid usually through a social insurance system funded by taxes (with the exception of Australia, which nevertheless has a financial “baby bonus” system). In the Unites States, however, the burden is left entirely to, and at the discretion of, employers. The Family and Medical Leave Act provides workers with 12 weeks of job protection when away from work to care for a newborn or adopted child, and is available to workers of both genders for a total of 24 weeks between two parents. However, in the absence of a social insurance system, none of this time is necessarily paid leave. Employers are left to decide if they will pick up the slack of providing it.

Additionally, because smaller employers are not covered by FMLA, and because the eligibility rules for employees require a substantial period of full-time work previous to leave, only about 60% of all US workers can take advantage of FMLA’s protections. These same requirements also skew eligibility based on income – 74% of employees earning $100K and above may take advantage of FMLA, in contrast to only 39% of those earning less than $20K. Several states have added paid family leave benefits for several weeks, but these are in the minority. As a result, only a quarter of all employers offer fully paid leave of any duration in the US, and one-fifth offer no leave of any kind, paid or unpaid.

Challenges to Employers – And Solutions that Work

The end result is that employers are not getting much help from outside to provide employees a cushion as new parents. As a result, employers mistakenly conclude that offering paid leave and family-friendly benefits is a matter of “being nice,” instead of a fiscally responsible business decision.

With women poised to become the majority of the overall workforce this year, and the wage gap, though narrowing, still alive and well, lack of financial support during leave and family-friendly benefits reinforces traditional gender roles in such a way that men, women, and employers all lose. Female employees pay a penalty in both the short and long term, as social expectations that women will take on child care duties and men will be providers, combined with the usually lower wages earned by women prior to having a child, create a system that encourages women to leave the work force to care for young children, while discouraging men from participating in full time parenting even when they wish to. Employers are left with a system that is unbalanced, and with the high probability that they will lose some of their top employees as they make job decisions based on child-related factors. As a former employee of Middlesex Savings Bank in Massachusetts who quit after the birth of her first child states, “My company’s lack of flexibility contributed to my decision to leave.” Employees of Ernst and Young, on the other hand, cite their company’s family friendly workplace policies as a contributing factor to their decision to stay with the company for the long term. The cutthroat practice of retaining top human capital makes these benefits a tool of corporate survival.

So, when that baby boom hits the office, and talk around the water cooler centers around trimesters, what do the progressive companies have that others don’t?

Strategies vary, but paid, gender-equitable parental leave is first and foremost in importance. If leave is balanced across both parents, the burden on individual employers is lessened in the short-term, and over the long-term keeps work teams more split evenly across genders, which increases productivity. The return on investment is clear. Because general expectations discourage men to take leave even when it is available to them, support for paternity leave must be reinforced by top management. In an informal poll among friends with young children, men all said that they took extended leave only after a male manager above them had already done so. This is supported by research, which also shows that merely offering the paternity leave in the workplace increases employee morale.

In the transition back to the workplace for a new mother, employers can explore options for flexible workspaces, which increase both productivity and morale, and alternative business hours. Job sharing or a compressed work week may also allow employees who would have otherwise left the workforce to stay integrated to the business, contributing to profitability and reducing the risk of flight to a competitive company. Private, comfortable spaces in which to use a breast pump (some companies provide the pump as well) also allow women to return to work sooner and to balance parental leave between genders. Such “lactation programs” are often cited as a benefit offered by top companies – as the former Middlesex employee put it, “There is a big difference [between] grudgingly accepting that the mother has a legal right to use a breast pump, and being actively supportive (like providing a place other than a bathroom or closet and allowing break/lunch time to be broken up into several segments).” That difference can give an employer an edge, both in retention and by contributing to a reputation that fosters recruitment.

What’s it like to work for one of Fortune Magazine’s Top 100 Employers? For starters: perks, perks, perks. Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” pride themselves on providing competitive salaries, excellent health care packages, discounted child care, an exceptional work/life balance, optional telecommuting, fully paid sabbaticals, referral bonuses, tuition remission, and unlimited sick days, just to name a few.

Quality benefits packages can serve to attract and retain employees, but that’s not the sole reason that makes a company “the best.” According to an article published by the Harvard Business Review, “If you don’t recognize your employees’ specific interpersonal talents, you could be missing a big opportunity to enhance their job satisfaction and boost your organization’s overall performance.”

Fortune’s top 5 companies in 2010 understand what it takes to recruit, hire, and retain quality employees, improve employee satisfaction, and maintain a productive workforce. Fortune’s Deputy Managing Editor, Hank Gilman, explained that “The most important considerations for this year’s list were hiring and the ways in which companies are helping their employees weather the recession. All 100 companies on our list are currently hiring, representing a total of more than 92,000 open job positions.”

SAS

Jenn Mann, Vice President of Human Resources for number 1 ranked SAS said, “In a tough economy, SAS did not waver from our commitment to our employees and the innovative culture that keeps them challenged and provides work-life balance. SAS’ continued success proves our core belief: Happy, healthy employees are more productive.”

Edward Jones

Representing number 2 ranked Edward Jones, Jim Weddle, Edward Jones’ managing partner, spoke of the importance of respect for your employees especially in a difficult economy. Weddle explained “…we were able to stay focused on the long-term because we are a partnership and we know who we are and what we do. We had no layoffs. We had to make some difficult decisions in terms of cutting back expenses, which we did successfully. But when you respect the people who work here, you take care of them – not just in the good times, but the difficult times as well.” (http://www.edwardjones.com/groups/ejw_content/@ejw/@us/documents/web_content/web222695.pdf)

Wegmans Food Markets

CEO Danny Wegman of number 3 ranked Wegmans Food Markets said, “It’s our people who make Wegmans a great place to work. They respect and care for one another and for our customers. I am very grateful and proud of what they are able to accomplish.” Wegmans’ commitment to its employees shows as the company “…has never had a layoff in its 94-year history. More than 4,000 employees, 11% of the workforce, have been [there] more than 15 years.”

Google

Number 4 ranked Google offers “challenging projects and smart people with potential to change the world. Googlers relish the freedom to create the next generation of web technologies in an environment designed to foster collaboration, creativity, health, and happiness.” Larry Page, Google Co-Founder, says that “Google is organized around the ability to attract and leverage the talent of exceptional technologists and business people. We have been lucky to recruit many creative, principled, and hard-working stars.”

Nugget Market

Nugget Market, ranked number 5 by Fortune, has been extra-sensitive to their employees’ financial hardships and has made an honest attempt to help out. According to Fortune, “The tough economy prompted the supermarket chain to help associates by giving them cards good for 10% discounts on $500 of groceries every month. At one employee-appreciation event, the executive team surprised everyone by washing the cars of all associates.” Store Director, John Sullivan, said “I wouldn’t ask any associate to do something I wouldn’t do myself, whether it’s mopping up a spill or taking the trash out. That’s the kind of leadership I give my team. In doing that, we have a wonderful relationship in the store. We really are a family.”

As an Evolved Employer, how are you showing your employees that you care?

Over the last year, in large law firms across the country, associates have lived in fear of losing their jobs, accepting and even seeking out longer hours at the office in the hope that if they can accumulate enough billable hours, their jobs will be spared. Unfortunately, such a practice is leading to growing dissatisfaction for all involved. Associates are worn out and resentful of their current predicament. Clients are becoming fed up with large legal bills which reflect the work of several attorneys billing a significant number of hours in order to produce a single piece of work product. Law firm partners are struggling to maintain and bring in business since clients are going in increasing numbers to smaller firms where the same legal work can be done for a lot less.

In this time of high unemployment and economic hardship, should we consider work-life balance a luxury, available only when economic times are good, and just be thankful we have jobs at all?

Although the answer from many quarters seems to be “yes”, others believe that sacrificing work-life balance is not the best strategy to surviving a tough economy. Lisa Gates, life balance coach and author of “Are You Ditching Work-Life Balance Because You’re Afraid of Losing Your Job?” explains that balancing work and personal life in a down economy is important, not just for your well-being outside of work, but to ensure you remain mentally and physically prepared to successfully carry out workplace goals and make sound decisions in your career.

Large law firms can learn from those employers which have already recognized the importance of work-life balance. According to Susan Fenton, author of “Firms Say Work-Life Balance Boosts Productivity”, companies such as Dutch mail company TNT, oil company BP, and US computer maker Sun Microsystems Inc. have found that work life imbalances lead to increased business costs. As a result of these findings, these companies have adopted more flexible working arrangements which they say motivate employees, resulting in increased productivity and efficiency.

Despite the lack of work-life balance in an overwhelming number of law firms, there are those recognized by Yale Law Women as the Top Ten Family Friendly Firms for 2009.

• Arnold & Porter
• Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
• Covington & Burling
• Jenner & Block
• Katten Muchin Rosenman
• Mayer Brown
• Munger, Tolles & Olson
• Patton Boggs
• Sidley Austin
• WilmerHale

According to the Yale Law Women (YLW) website, these firms are leaders in facilitating work-life balance for attorneys and are praised for continuing to do so in tough economic times. YLW also recognizes, however, that there continues to be gender disparities in the implementation of these family-friendly policies and hopes firms will strive to improve upon them. YLW believes such efforts are necessary in order to respond to changing market demands.