Hold CEOs accountable for their bad parenting

I’m so glad you are writing about these issues, Penelope. Having working in both small companies and Fortune 500 ones, I’ve seen the skewed values of those at the top and those that aspire to that place. You are absolutely right; the attitude does trickle down. Like Rachel, I’ve been through a meat-grinder jobs or two, and I say “NEVER AGAIN.” I suppose it comes down to how one defines success.

What a facinating post. I have been on the side of a worker trying to survive by working the 100 hour weeks. Somehow, at the critical time in my children’s lives I was able to change my job focus so that I could spend the time necessary for their development. Interestingly, I am reading a book by John Eldridge in which he talks about the problem with young people today is that they are be raised fatherless and have no validation to for the process of initiation that brings full adulthood. The answer seems to be somewhere in the word balance in one’s life rather than using all of the energy one area. I am not sure why we don’t see that and CEO’s don’t see that. If we don’t become conscious of our children’s needs in these area we will continue to raise children that grow up seeking connection.

I think it’s only necessary for companies to consider their employee’s personal decisions and lifestyle. Since it’s their personality, there’s a chance that they will do it to the company as well.

Hi Penelope,
Great article as far as it goes.

As a baby boomer in the corporate world complete with an MBA, I always valued my time, whether it was for raising my 3 kids (all of whom turned out great!), my wife or just to have time to myself. People who wear the number of hours on their sleeve like it’s a badge of honor are nuts. I’ve always felt our time on this planet is a final performance, not a dress rehearsal, so you better make the best of it doing what you want to do; you’ll never get another chance.

Also, when we hear these corporate execs say they work soooooooo many hours don’t forget that when they go home their time off is theirs. They have housekeepers, maids, nannies, accountants, lawyers, gardners, cooks etc. etc. to take care of the daily “maintenance” things us mere mortals have to do ourselves.

Interesting article, however, the wonderful thing about America is choice. Let’s spin this a different way. How different then, is it for an occupation like say, being in the Navy (whether officer or enlisted), where you have to deploy on a 9 month annual cruise, in order to perform your job tasks; or like my “adopted” son, a CPT in the Army, having to complete combat tours of 12 and 15 months (with only 12 months home time in between)? Now before you acknowledge my son’s service and that of our vets, my point being, is that everyone makes a career choice. These careers have requirements. According to the thesis of the article – that would define these men and women as “bad parents,” if for no other reason than the fact that they’re away from the home. I read the article more as being an indictment of corporate privilege, than one about “bad parenting” etc. Now the CEO with the illicit affairs is probably more indicative of a lack of a moral grounding (read: spend the first day of your week Worshiping your creator) than anything else. A corporate philosophy which drives home the idea of a coporate “moral balance” from the top is “Chick – Fil – A,” who do so quite nicely I might add. Their restaurants are not open on Sundays. So, I guess if their CEO works 100 hour weeks, it must be Monday – Saturday, only. As to Jeff Immelt, he was screened for his position of CEO of G.E. for over a decade, and is of the utmost integrity (unless he’s had some kind of secret ethical meltdown while at the summit of G.E.) of which the general public is unaware.

It is a shame that these CEO’s and top executives can’t see the bigger picture….when you have a family you have to be part of the family.

You can’t expect flowers to grow, if you don’t water them.

This is a great point.

It is not easy to take the cut, but it is worth it. My wife and I were both management consultants (pre-kids). I did my million miles in my first seven years of working.

Just before our first kid was born, we both changed jobs. I think we took a 30% hit to our top line. It was difficult, but the rewards are there. I love being in town with the kids.

After trying working with different styles, I firmly believe that people with balance in their lives are better employees especially on anything that requires some creative analysis.

“Yeah, I'm a capitalist. And I don't know what the answer is to this problem of income extremes (I don't like income taxes any more than anybody else does).”

I don’t think you have to — raising marginal tax rates won’t fix this.

I see three things that will help a lot:

1. Kick in an exemption from payroll taxes under about $35K at the low end. (And raise the cap at the high end to make up the revenue.)

2. Fix the way we tax investment income.

3. Stop rewarding companies with no-bid govt contracts for taking their headquarters offshore to avoid corporate taxes.

Also, recognize that historically, we’re paying income taxes at half the (again, marginal) rate our parents did. Our income taxes are NOT too high and haven’t been since we’ve been old enough to take a legal drink.

Anyway, if you’re interested, here’s the rationale:

Point 1: Payroll taxes.

We’re all, I think, devastated by the tax bite out of our first paycheck, in spite of the fact that it usually comes at a time in life when we owe ZERO income tax. It’s almost all payroll tax: Social Security and Medicare, plus income taxes withheld as if we were going to owe but we don’t, but at that point we don’t know we’re going to get a refund.

That makes us very vulnerable to anti-tax messages at an impressionable, emotional age — but those are mostly about income taxes. A median-or-lower income voter, or a blended careerist, for that matter, doesn’t benefit from lower income taxes unless s/he pays them.

But the CEOs’ political support has in the process coopted that powerful, painful experience that will get that person behind all sorts of nefarious schemes — all by promising lower taxes of a kind that will never come. Or, if it does, the tiny increase in the current paycheck will set that young person up for real tragedy in the years ahead.

In the meantime, though, payroll taxes come off everyone’s first dollar. And the checks they fund go to everyone’s benefit checks — even a CEO’s mom. Now, how rich is that?

Point 2. Investment income.

Interest income and stock dividends carry a maximum tax rate of 15% — the same rate as the kid who bags your groceries.

Now, CEOs aren’t stupid enough to have their packages paid out as salaries they’d have to pay taxes on — I’d be sure they have a lot of stuff labeled as interest and dividends (also, remember those loans everybody got in the Enron days?) so the most they’re paying is 15%. Probably also a whole lotta nothing.

If we want to help companies get investors, we should make dividends deductible as business expenses. Not grant Susie and Biff a tax-free income for life for signing a certificate once a year.

And no, Susie’s not going to make more loans because the tax rate on interest is 15%. She’s just going to buy more safe bonds and T-bills — i.e., sit on the money. That does NOT grow our technology sector or stimulate any other part of the economy. It contracts it.

Point 3.

I used to be a fiscal conservative. Then we bought a house, and I realized I was on welfare too, courtesy of the mortgage interest deduction.

The amount of income redistribution, as my conservative friends like to call it, that goes from taxpayers to the housing and defense industries positively dwarfs the trickle that ever got through to poverty programs. As a prime beneficiary, I say: More Power To Them!

But when a company moves to the Grand Caymans, or to Dubai in the case of Halliburton, and quits paying corporate income taxes, at the very least they should have to bid for their next government contracts, and they should have to actually deliver the services rendered at the prices billed.

Or is that just for us small-business, independent-contractor patsies?

I actually worked for a CEO who was described in this article. He had three children who he abandoned for his career. When I had my son a year ago I decided to work part time from home and was frowned on for doing so. I no longer work for this man due to the conflicts we had in our family values. I agree 100%! Success should be measured not only on business success but how these men and women raisede their children. Let’s look and see if these CEO’s children are in therapy or have drug problems because they didn’t have a father in their life when they needed one???

Thank you for sharing the article.

Michelle

I’m going to present a different view.

I don’t have aggregated, scientific data for the views below but….

I don’t think parents need snuggle their kids for them to be successful.

1) Pierre Trudeau (one of the most revered Canadian Prime Minister),
2) Rupert Murdoch,
3) Ted Turner,
4) Chiang Ching Kwok (former Taiwan President, one of the most successful)

All these men are recorded saying their fathers were incredible busy and spent little time with them.

You don’t see them on drugs or failing in life.

Just because their fathers bum around at home for 8 hours a day doesn’t make them good parents. Especially if parents have so little work to do they stick their nose in their kids lives in the name of “helping” their children.

Whether these above people are “good” people or not (e.g. both Trudeau and Chiang were caught having extra marital affairs) is debatable, but they both grew into competent men whom made significant positive impacts in their careers.

I see way too much “work life balance” as an excuse to be lazy. Just because someone is lazy and works only 40 hours doesn’t automatically make them an amazing parent.

50% of marriage end in divorce. Only 1% of people make more than $150,000.

Let’s even say EVERY upper class person gets divorced. You still have 49% of divorced being caused by those whom are not upper class.

Just because you don’t work long hours, doesn’t mean you are a good parent.

As for the Medtronics CEO, has it ever occurred maybe he is lying? A number of billionaires claimed they work under 50 hours. A certain computer company owner says he reads to his kids every night, how would his travel schedule permit that? He was at a conference in Europe in the afternoon……is his jet really THAT fast?