Address for the American Philosophical Society

Virtual

April 27, 2022

Introduction

Thank you, Linda, for that kind introduction.

And thank you all for welcoming me into this extraordinary organization.

I have enjoyed learning about its rich history – including its precursor… the Junto club - founded by Benjamin Franklin, in 1727.

As many of you know, Franklin proposed that the club be formed of “ingenious” members - readers, and intellectuals.

And I’m told that newcomers, like me…had to make a series of pledges.

They had to profess “a love of mankind - of any profession or religion soever”

They had to reject that “any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or good for mere speculative opinions”

And they had to answer one, essential, overriding question - inspired by John Locke:

“Do you love truth for truth’s sake?”

Any club that demands this of its members is one I am happy to join.

Naturally, public speaking was also a vital ingredient.

They met on Friday evenings, in a place called the Indian Head Tavern.  

One Junto member, Nicholas Scull, wrote that the meetings were designed to “inspire…with bright ideas and poetic fire”.

It’s just one of the reasons I am looking forward to our future meetings…particularly when they can once again be held in-person.

For now, we can take heart in imagining Ben Franklin’s amazement and delight in seeing our faces and voices beamed around the globe.

Back in Franklin’s day, of course, things happened much slower.

It took about two and a half months for a letter from the colonies to reach London.

And much longer to reach continental Europe and beyond. 

That would hardly change for the next century…until the invention of the telegraph.

When practically overnight, months were reduced to minutes.

Time moves – in Ernest Hemingway’s phrase – “gradually, then suddenly.”

We track history by those sudden disruptions.

And when they happen in our own lifetimes, we look back on earlier periods in disbelief.

“Remember the days before cell phones and the internet?” we say.

Teenagers roll their eyes – just as we did when our parents mentioned life before television.

But these technological disruptions often pale in comparison to far more profound cultural disruptions.

When an idea once thought radical, even farfetched…quickly becomes widespread.

All of the greatest disruptions in history have followed this path.

From the abolition of slavery and child labor, to women’s suffrage and same-sex marriage.

[Pause]

So tonight, I’d like to begin our annual gathering by talking about what I believe should be the next great disruption to our society:

How we integrate work and family.

Right now, the two are in conflict.

That is bad for society and for companies.

And the costs fall heaviest on women.

This has been slowly changing over time – but much too slowly.

I believe we can accelerate this process, from gradually to suddenly…so that one day, children - and girls in particular…will look back in disbelief that there was ever a time… when people were forced to choose between having a career and having children.

An overlooked subject

And since this Society has been at the forefront of so many advances in the way we live…across all the sciences and the humanities…there can be no better place to talk about the issue.

Because even though our members include some of history’s greatest thinkers:

Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Isaiah Berlin…

…we have to admit that philosophers did not always get it right on family matters — when they engaged at all.

Socrates’ as recorded in Plato’s Republic…  said that children ought to be “possessed in common, so that no parent will know his own offspring”. 

Aristotle argued that fathers have the right to disown their sons.

Rousseau, taking this advice literally, abandoned his five children, sending them to a foundling home.  Then he wrote a treatise on the proper upbringing of children.

Montaigne, for his part, was a little more caring.

Parents, he said, may “cherish and make much” of their children - “if they deserve it”.

I think it is fair to say that in the history of philosophy, substantial questions of work and parenthood have been too often ignored and overlooked – at best.

The result, I think, is a lack of serious thought, and serious argument…about how they fit together…into that great philosophical idea - ‘the good life’.

So tonight, since I’m a big believer in measuring results…I will consider this talk a success if it leads even one of you to discuss the topic with your friends, families, and colleagues.

Because the more that influential leaders like you bring these issues to the fore, the faster we can move.

[Pause]

Now, the relationship between family and work is very personal to all of us.

So let me begin with a little of my own story.

I emigrated to the U.S. from India in 1978 at age 23 to attend Yale’s new business school, and when my career brought me to Chicago, I met a wonderful man who I have now been married to for more than 40 years.

Together, we raised our two daughters – with lots of help from family, friends, and caregivers.

At the same time, I worked incredibly hard at Boston Consulting Group, at Motorola, at ABB, and at PepsiCo…and ended up leading PepsiCo for 12 years as chairman and CEO.

When people ask me what brings me the most meaning in life, I answer the same way that most Americans do:

Family… and work.

Yet it’s remarkable that conversations around the future of work still dance around the idea of ‘family’. 

The conversations focus instead on technology and automation, artificial intelligence and robotics, education and skill training.

All those issues are incredibly important.

But what about family?

Too often, family has been considered something separate from work.

Well, that may have been true once.

When women were expected to stay home, and men were not expected to be involved in childrearing.

Those days are gone, yet the laws and norms governing the work-family relationship have stayed largely the same.

And changing them is what motivated me to write a book.

I was not interested in telling the traditional tale of an immigrant who arrives here with little and ends up with a lot.

I wanted to write about the need for a new work-family model, as someone who continually struggled with how to balance them – and who didn’t always get it right.

My daughters and husband would be the first to tell you that – although my mother might beat them to the punch.

But in writing the book, I wanted to inspire others to share their struggles mixing work and family… and bring more attention to the sacrifices they have made.

Because the tradeoffs, the angst, and the costs that force people to choose between family and career are not set in stone. 

We can change them – and if we do, the benefits will be immense.

Why this matters

So before we talk about HOW to integrate work and family into a new model – the solutions…let’s talk about WHY we should do it.

The stakes are very high – not only for gender equality, but also for economic growth.

The timing of this conversation couldn’t be better, because it bears directly on one of the biggest challenges facing the U.S. economy right now:

The severe labor shortage.

Two years ago, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont asked me to help lead the state’s response to the Covid-19 crisis.

I witnessed, first-hand, the economic forces that have resulted in this current labor shortage.

And I’ve seen the pain that employers are now facing, unable to find the workers they need to run their businesses.

There are about 11 million job openings here in the US, which is putting a real drag on economic growth. 

And one of the biggest factors driving this problem, it turns out, is care-giving.

Men have pretty much returned to their pre-pandemic labor force numbers – but women have not. 

A recent Census Bureau study found that there are about 6.6 million people who are not working because they are caring for someone else: children and grandchildren, parents and spouses, siblings and other family members.

Most of these people, of course, are women. And women these days happen to be the exact people that employers need — energetic, creative, diverse workers who are getting more bachelors and advanced degrees than ever, and more than men.

So freeing up more care givers to re-enter the paid workforce would provide a huge boost to the economy and help ease some of the inflationary pressure we face.

Unless we take action, the labor shortage is actually likely to worsen over time, because the industries where job openings are growing fastest are in areas where women predominate, including health care and home care – and jobs of every kind that require a college degree.

The question is: how do we bring more caregivers into the workforce in ways that move progress from slowly… to gradually? 

I believe this will require three major shifts in American life: one cultural, one corporate, and one civic.

Let me start with culture.

Changing our culture

One of the biggest impediments to a new work-family model is also one of the most culturally entrenched: gender bias. And one of the reasons it is so difficult to change is that it’s difficult to talk about – for all of us.

Women don’t like to be seen as complaining, and men often don’t like to rock the boat.

But open dialogue is so important.

The more we share our stories, and listen to one another, the more progress we can make.

I know the pain of being paid less than my male counterparts, which I experienced as a young executive.

And I know what it is like to be talked over and interrupted.

It even happened when I was the Chairman and CEO of a Fortune 50 company.

If we want more women to remain in the workforce, it’s crucial that we encourage people of all genders – at all levels of seniority – to call out bias when they see it.

[Pause]

One of the most pernicious forms of bias that women face is still flying under the radar of most male managers and executives.

And that’s the way women are judged differently than men for the family choices we make.

This leads many mothers to feel conflicted about sticking with their careers when they have so many demands from their children, too.

In fact, when I said earlier that history’s great thinkers have often overlooked the pressures of caregiving…perhaps that was a little unfair.

Feminist philosophers like Carol Gilligan and Annette Baier have written brilliantly on the subject.

Their field is now known as the ethics of care.

Building on earlier ideas of justice - proposed by people like Hume, and Rawls…they argue that women disproportionately shoulder the burden of care…and often feel a heavier responsibility than men when weighing up their obligations to society.

Throughout my career, I often felt that – even as I was gaining influence and power in the corporate world – I was failing my family, because I wasn’t home more.

I felt I was not living up to society’s expectation of a mother.

Looking back, I’m a little heartbroken I spent so much energy worrying about this.

Because I came to realize that I was judging myself against an unfair standard.

A standard that holds family over the heads of women, and treats professional success as though it was achieved at the expense of motherhood.

Women often feel that getting a promotion or prize outside the home seems to mean we are letting our domestic duties slide.

I suspect some members of this Society have experienced this too.

When career success is seen as shirking family duties, women often leave the workforce out of anxiety or guilt. 

And it’s important for men to understand that… and to get into the discussion… and realize that when they hire people, they are not merely getting a pair of hands. The whole family comes along.

[Pause]

So that’s the cultural challenge we face:

Confronting bias and celebrating women’s success…without turning it into a judgment on motherhood, where women feel they must choose between children and career.

As leaders in our field, we all have opportunities to advance those conversations.

The social obligations of business

The second element in building a new work-family model…is changing the way we think about companies. That starts, I believe, with putting the “public” back in public corporations.

Three years ago, as you may recall, the Business Roundtable released a statement endorsed by 181 CEOs about corporate responsibility.

It stated that the CEOs were, quote, “redefining the purpose of a corporation” – from one that benefitted shareholders to one that benefitted all stakeholders, including employees.

It was heralded as a major development, and I was certainly glad to see it.

But it was not a new idea.

In fact, as the historians in our society know well, corporations are rooted in public benefits.

In the early days of America, corporate charters had to be approved by government. And government only approved them if the corporation had a public purpose.

It was one of this Society’s earliest members, John Adams, who was the driving force behind this idea.

His vision was that joint stock companies would share the burden of risk and spread the rewards of enterprise.

That was the trade-off for extending legal protections and privileges. Investors could reap profits, but the public had to benefit.

Over time, that trade-off was lost. And in that loss lie the roots of many of the challenges we face today.

[Pause]

To be clear: I’m an unabashed capitalist who believes deeply in the benefits of private enterprise.

But I also believe that a company’s impact on society needs to be written through all its business planning – and not as an afterthought. 

What’s good for commerce and what’s good for society must go together.

I put that philosophy to work at PepsiCo, by re-thinking everything we did under a new umbrella, which we called Performance with Purpose.

The idea was to link our business success more directly to the success of our employees and communities… and I will tell you that it was not an easy lift.

Many thought it odd that a modern-day CEO would try so hard to move an organization beyond the idea that a company exists to make shareholders happy.

I’ll never forget a portfolio manager asking me, incredulously: “Who do you think you are – Mother Teresa?”

But the notion that a corporation is just a profit center is a relatively recent one – and it has not served companies or society well.

[Pause]

When I led PepsiCo, we began looking at all our products and operations through the lens of environmental sustainability, healthier eating and drinking, and supporting and empowering our employees – so we could attract and retain the most talented people.

We instituted 12 weeks of paid leave. We created childcare centers at or near our facilities, wherever possible. And we added private space for breast-feeding, and a Health Pregnancy Program that offered support to expecting mothers.

These things work. We saw real returns in terms of loyalty and peace of mind – and it was an incredible recruiting tool.

Especially the childcare, which reduced commuting time and increased productivity for both moms and dads. 

I know PepsiCo had the resources to do this. But while small companies may not be able to offer childcare on their own, that doesn’t mean they can’t be part of the solution.

We just have to think creatively.

For instance: What if small companies banded together – and with community groups – to create joint-child care centers in central locations.  And what if we recruited retirees to help out when others were on leave? Or to participate in a broader, more multi-generational approach to taking care of kids after school?

[Pause]

I also think we must be much more upfront in taking on one of the biggest reasons that women don’t re-enter the workforce, the so-called “motherhood penalty.” 

Some of you may have paid it, or seen your spouse or friends pay it.

It’s the penalty that women pay when they return to work after having a child. Their opportunities are somehow restricted — and that often results, over time, in lower pay.

This is a very well-documented phenomenon, and the fact is: it’s not only mothers.

Anyone who takes time off to care for a loved one – a spouse, a parent, a sibling…can get caught in a loop of bosses and colleagues who feel they are not quite as productive or as committed to their job as the guy sitting beside them.

This is one reason why millennial women, in particular, are choosing not to have kids or delaying childbirth.

Some are accommodating this reality by freezing their eggs, putting off their decision to become mothers because the situation is so fraught.

Of course, delaying motherhood to reduce career penalties is itself a penalty – it robs women of the freedom to control if and when they want to begin their families.

It’s critical that employers recognize this problem exists and create return ramps for women who have taken time off to care for a loved one.

Civic change

The motherhood penalty and the reasons for gender-based pay disparities have been getting more attention lately – and that’s encouraging.

But we also know that not every CEO is willing to listen. And that brings us to the third essential solution: civic change.

Now I realize: There are some people who look at capitalism as something of a Holy Grail handed down from the heavens to Adam Smith.

But to me, capitalism is more like a garden that must be tended to encourage healthy growth.

Watering and fertilizing, but also mulching, weeding, and pruning to prevent and remove harmful threats that naturally arise.

When we are diligent, the harvests can be abundant.

But when we sit back and let nature run its course, the results can be catastrophic.

When the industrial revolution shifted work from fields to factories, society came face-to-face with the free market’s terrible externalities: Unsafe working conditions. Child labor. Unsanitary food. Stifling pollution.

Thankfully, the Progressive Era saved capitalism from its excesses. And a generation later, the New Deal saved it from its failures. Policies that began as radical ideas slowly bubbled up from cities and states – and went national in bursts of congressional activity.

Change happened gradually, then suddenly – and what emerged was a new era of capitalism: stronger, more humane, more just, and more stable.

But of course: For women, Black Americans and many others, this new and improved version of capitalism looked an awful lot like the old.

It would take the Civil Rights movement to begin wresting capitalism away from bigotry and discrimination – and that is still going on. 

[Pause] 

In each era, Americans used democracy to cultivate capitalism – putting it to work for us, to advance our values and goals.

But one of the most remarkable aspects about women’s entrance into the labor force is just how little it changed the way government views the relationship between work and family. 

We still are not taking the basic steps necessary to support those who want to earn a good living while also building a healthy, happy home life. 

In fact, since I entered the workforce, the situation has gotten more difficult, because the cost of health care, childcare, college education, and housing have all gone up dramatically – far outpacing income growth.

[Pause]

Some of you may have family or friends who decided not to have children – or not have a second or third child – because of these costs.

And some of you may have faced the dilemma yourselves. 

The US birthrate is falling and is now below replacement rate.  That is a serious challenge for our country because stagnant population growth, over time, leads to a stagnating economy.

It’s clear to me that we need change – and I believe it should start in three crucial ways.

Paid parental leave

First: Paid maternity and paternity leave must be mandated by the U.S. government as soon as possible. Currently, only 1 in 5 workers receives any paid leave. Among lower-income workers, it’s 1 in 20.

There’s a long list of physical and mental health benefits to both infant and parent when they bond and heal in the weeks after birth.

That is why every other developed country has adopted paid parental leave.

In fact, the U.S. is the only developed nation in the world where paid leave for a new baby does not exist at the national level.

Women who take paid leave are 93 percent more likely to be in the workforce 12 months after a child’s birth than those who don’t. And studies show that fathers who take leave are more likely to share in household responsibilities equitably over the long-term and have greater empathy for family demands.

[Pause]

In addition to young parents, those with grown children often need paid leave, too.

Early in my career, when my father fell ill with cancer, I was at a consulting firm. In an unexpected turn, my boss kindly told me to take six months, with pay, to care for him.

I ended up only using about three months of the time. But without it, I would have quit. Nothing could have stopped me from taking this time to care for my father.

The fact is: I would not have become the CEO of PepsiCo without having the benefit of three different types of paid leave: caring for my dad; caring for my two daughters in the months after they were born; and, caring for myself after a car accident when I had to recover from major injuries.

If all Americans had these opportunities for paid leave, our country would reap the long-term benefits – in both gender equality and economic productivity.

Universal childcare

The second way we can use civic action to transform the work-family relationship is to adopt universal childcare for children under 5.

The average cost of childcare is $1,300 a month, or $16,000 a year. That’s more than the cost of attending a public university in many states – and well out of reach for most families.

Since most parents cannot afford to leave work, they often struggle with their duties, causing them great stress. A recent survey found that about one in three primary caregivers has been reprimanded, demoted, transferred or fired because of child care challenges.

Meanwhile, companies lose about $13 billion a year in lost productivity from these same challenges, and government loses $7 billion in tax revenue.

So this is not a question of whether the public should pay for child care or not.

It’s a question of whether we continue paying for an unorganized childcare system in the form of lost economic activity – as we are doing now… or devote our energy to thinking through smart government involvement that will make families healthier and our economy stronger.

To me, it’s a no-brainer. 

Flexible work

Now, the third major civic action needed to transform the work-family relationship is providing more flexibility and predictability in working hours and locations.

Workdays should be organized around productivity, not time and place. And for all the tragedy that COVID has wrought, there has also been a silver lining – because it has moved corporate acceptance of more flexible schedules from gradually… to suddenly.

This has been an enormous step forward for white collar workers – and now we need to take a similar step for shift workers, by providing them with more predictability in their schedules.

The lack of predictable hours is extremely hard to manage for parents and other care-givers, and leads some to drop out of the workforce.

A study of retail workers at GAP stores found that when they were given predictable hours, not only were they happier – they sold more clothes! Sales went up 7 percent.

It’s a powerful example of what happens when we recognize that employees have family members who count on them.

[Pause]

Achieving these three ideas – paid leave, universal childcare, and more flexible and predictable work schedules – will require us all to take action. That means voting. And advocating. And supporting candidates who understand the importance of harmonizing work and family.

This is the spade work of cultivating capitalism. And as we plant new seeds, we can pull out the old weeds that block healthy growth. For example: zoning restrictions and other housing regulations are preventing multiple generations from living under one roof.

That’s a good example of how strengthening family support systems does not always require more government intervention. Sometimes, it requires less.  And combining the two missions creates the possibility of bipartisan compromise. 

[Pause]

I truly believe that by working together for civic, cultural and corporate change, we can create a citizen-centered capitalism that integrates the two areas of life where we find the greatest meaning: our families, and our work.

The more we all push, the faster we can reach that tipping point where change moves from gradually… to suddenly…not six generations from now, but in our own lifetimes…so that we will be able to see the look of amazement on the faces of our grandchildren when we tell them about the old days, when families were not valued and supported in the workplace.

And we know it can be done, because this Society has helped bend the arc of history many times before.

[Pause]

In the Declaration of Independence, one of our early members placed equality at the heart of this new nation, by writing that “all men are created equal.”

Every generation is called to extend the definition of equality more broadly, and more fully. That is the beauty and brilliance of America, and it is a great honor to be a member of a Society has helped lead the way forward for nearly three centuries.

I want to thank you, again, for joining this session, and I look forward to meeting you all in person. Good night. 

###