It’s not often that a public figure tells the world he or she is leaving a career because of family obligations.
Even if they use that excuse, it’s typically brushed aside because most everyone knows it’s not the real reason.
That’s why I thought it was odd that Chris Dodd, the democratic senator from Connecticut, felt he had to take a swipe at people who use their family as an excuse when he was making his exit-from-politics speech.
“There’s nothing more pathetic, in my view, than a politician who announces they’re only leaving public life to spend more time with their family.”
There’s been some outrage over the comment on the blogesphere since he made it last week.
US News & World Reports’ Mary Kate Cary wrote:
Chris Dodd only became a father relatively recently, and spent the bulk of his Senate career as a bachelor, so maybe that’s why he said what he said. But his remark shows a disconnect with the majority of people who run for office, especially women. Most people realize the enormous toll being in politics takes on families, and it’s one of the reasons good people don’t run for office these days.
I’ve spent the last few days pondering his statement.
Is it pathetic to use family obligations as the reason you’ve chosen to leave your career?
“For years it was the cynical ‘cover’ for many CEOs for years when they leave their positions usually for other reasons,” said Cali Williams Yost, CEO of Work+Life Fit Inc. who blogs for Fast Company.
It may be falling out of favor a bit. I’ve been looking through a bunch of CEO resignations last year and found few who used family as a key reason for their departures.
Lots of the big name CEOs that departed were connected with the economic collapse in some way so I guess it would have been pretty bad for them to include “family obligations” in their resignation letters.
Most of these CEOs were men, and let’s face it, society isn’t used to guys saying they want to play house with their kids more so they’re sacrificing their careers.
And is it a good idea for men or women to say they’re hitting the road for the kids, or your ailing parents, etc? Is it really considered “pathetic”?
What are your thoughts? I’m also asking some career experts this question today and will get back to you.
Yost’s thoughts on the topic:
“Two examples of senior leaders who left their jobs to really have more time with their families were the former executive of Pepsi, who left and is now with Sara Lee Brenda Barnes. And Bill Galston who left the Clinton White House for time with son, now a think tank guru. Both of their moves made headlines because they were so public and it was so unusual.
I think today when people say they are leaving to spend time with family, it’s less cynical and more truth. People for whom that is a priority, probably won’t seek a future position that will compromise their family needs at that time. So in terms of haunting you, it’s a matter of how they define success.”
And this from recruiter Sam Levine, president of The Buttonwood Group, an executive search firm affiliated with MRINetwork. Sam specializes in finding and placing impact players in the asset management field:
“If the family circumstances obviously outweigh the importance of the job and the story can be easily verified, I wouldn’t let it hold me back from recommending a great candidate.”
January 13th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I’ve known some people of both genders who have opted to leave (or limit) their careers for their families. The women have tended to do it while the children were young. The men have tended to do it as their kids got older (going into the teen years). I do believe some have used “family” or “personal reasons” as excuses, I believe most people today are pretty sincere when they leverage those reasons. I likely would have stayed in my old position (three hour average round-trip commute and all!) had my employer been willing to give me a little more flexibility to address the needs of my family. Since that didn’t work out, I found a job a half-mile from my home and now am much more involved in my kids’ lives.
January 13th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
In a way, I can understand. When you enter the political sphere, you do so with the understanding that you will have to make personal sacrifices and what’s more with the understanding that you have larger responsibilities now. Your family would then not just be defined as those who you come home to, but your entire constituency.
Having said that, obviously it was a stupid comment.
January 13th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
The assumption that “family concerns” or “family obligations” has a limited definition of spending time at home with family members is where critics are missing the point. There are as many definitions of “family concerns/obligations” as there are people with families. A few examples:
-A person is having an affair at work. The stipulation for the betrayed spouse sticking around to making the marriage work is for the cheater to cease all contact with the cheatee. That is definitely a “family concern.”
-A person working for a company that demands extended work hours and no discretionary time off to attend critical meetings (such as a child’s IEP meeting at school, a family funeral, a first oncologist visit with a spouse) could easily cite “family obligations” as a reason for leaving that company and going to work somewhere else with more reasonable hours.
-An executive who’s job responsibilities expanded to required the exec to travel extensively, leaving the care of elderly parents in the hands of non-relatives. This would be a “family concern.”
-A politician (who’s past, present and future life is under a microscope)who feels negative publicity will hurt his/her marriage and family. That is a a “family concern.” A job in the public sector would not involve as much risk in publicity.
The perception is that when someone leaves a career/job/specific employer for “family” reasons, that person is supposed to cease all work related activities and stay home with “family.” That is not today’s reality. Many times just changing a career path or finding a new company to work for resolves the “family concerns.” I do think, however, many people use “family concerns” as a blanket excuse to hide the real reasons they are jumping ship.
-
January 13th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
It is true, family obligation can mean so many things to so many different people.
I wonder if we’ll ever get to the point when saying family obligation won’t become a lightening rod.