...
written by Fi , September 21, 2009

this is so thought provoking!

...
written by Deborah Burns , September 21, 2009

During my 25-year career, I launched and directed a multi-million dollar PR division of a boutique ad agency. I have a first-hand knowledge of the challenges Ms. Stiles and many of us face as employers. In these situations, each of them different, effective compromise is always the best solution and everyone wins. I would have cut the hours or the salary (or both) of the staffer or several staffers first to ensure that I wouldn't lose integral team members while addressing the ever pressing financial needs of the firm. I believe we are all more successful when we have a more global view of our actions and their impact.

Deborah Burns
Founder, Managing Principal
Burns Communications
PR Synergy Plus
203.257.3163
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
www.burnscommunications.net
www.prsynergyplus.com

Delivering on-target brand communications solutions.

...
written by Beth , September 21, 2009

While I agree with Suze's point about women making too many sacrifices, I think she was stealing the spotlight to further her own profile. At the company where my friend works, all of the executives and managers took a 10 % pay cut to try and retain as many staff as possible. (The majority of them were men.)

I think Ms. Stiles deserves praise for being a executive who made a sacrifice to help her company. The fact that she is a woman is irrelevant, so I don't feel that she deserves Orman's criticism.

...
written by Beth , September 21, 2009

Ooops... I meant that the majority of managers/executives were men, not the majority of staff who were retained.

I should also note that current research shows that self-employed people of both sexes are sacrificing their own salary and finances to keep their businesses open and their staff employed. I wonder what Suze would say about that?

...
written by Jaime , September 21, 2009

I think that everyone needs to make sacrifices sometimes and that Ms. Stiles set an excellent example of the perfect way and time to make a sacrifice -- though I think it would have been better if she took a slightly smaller pay cut and then cut her employees' salaries a bit as well. I just wish more top management thought the same way and took their lead from her.

Where I think Suze is correct is that many women make sacrifices too soon and/or too often. They also tend to make the sacrifices by themselves and too complacently. The caretaker role is largely unappreciated in the workplace and usually only leads to someone letting themselves be taken advantage of, then growing resentment. You don't have to abandon it entirely, just caretake and sacrifice thoughtfully and deliberately. Don't just let people take advantage and consider all alternative avenues before taking one for the team.

...
written by Sam , September 21, 2009

I think this is a fascinating debate....not sure where I stand, but definitely something worth thinking about before it's time to make a decision like this.

...
written by Stacey , September 21, 2009

Wow...that must have made the feel in the room a bit heavier after that! But, I'm torn on this issue. Yes, women do need to stand up for what we deserve, however, in this particular circumstance, there may have been many more issues other than just pay. Maybe the Staffer that Ms. Stiles kept on by taking a pay reduction is a HUGE help in her daily tasks and helps her to keep a sane work schedule. Would firing that Staffer have meant that Ms. Stiles had to work longer hours to complete her tasks AND that of the staff she no longer has? Then, when you look at the hourly rate of pay, yes, you are still making "what you're worth", but at what other expense -- you know -- the opportunity cost? I think, in general, more women look at all the issues surrounding a decision and not just the money involved. Would a man in the same situation be lauded because he didn't take a pay reduction and worked the longer hours to get the job done? So, his pay or "worth" status goes unaffected, but at what cost to his life outside of work? While I agree that women are still not compensated fairly when compared with men, I also think that for some people, it's NOT just about the money.

...
written by Veriditas , September 21, 2009

Someone has to give. In my opinion, saving the position of just one person is the better thing to do. Although I truly don't know that much about the equal rights amendment I do think that it might be necessary to make everyone equal. Some times I think the world is not divided by men or women or republicans or democrats but by those who will give and those who will take. Those who want everything and those who want a few nice things. We live in a culture of greed. Does it have to make us products of that greed? An aside here - I do not believe war has anything to do with religion or culture. It has to do with who wants what the other person has. Women should earn exactly what men earn. Cent for Cent. Period. But asking nicely doesn't seem to do much. Let's make it law.
And there is, of course, the argument that it IS law through the constitution. That Inspiring, Beautiful document has been reduced to the paper that it was written upon. - OH - But I'll bet someone would want it for the value of the signatures.......
I am worth as much as every other human on earth. And I am a human being who has something to give. I believe that we have a responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves. Each of us has something different to offer the world. It might be the best soup, or the best joke or the most beautiful story or painting, or the most beautiful heart. If the staff member lost her/his job the ripple effect could be greater than we know. Okay - and another aside - I'm not saying we should have bailed anyone out. I think that the banks and the car companies did their damage to themselves. And I will also add that only quality products should be purchased if we are to vote with our dollars. I believe that if someone in China works 12 hours a day they should have a three day work week or paid overtime, insurance, and decent working conditions. And the owner of the coffee farm should receive direct pay for digging in the dirt and working their fingers until they ache picking cocoa beans or coffee beans or cashews. Needless to say I avoid Walmart, et al., like the plague.
Suze has some good ideas. But I do not agree with everything she says. I know people who do not go out to eat or have a few nice things or do something they have always wanted to save those few extra bucks. Which would truly make a person richer? A life or a dollar?
If nurturers ran the world and there would be a true smackdown on greed and unfairness we might just continue to evolve as a people.
Thanks for reading and I'm always open for discussion with the goal of understanding and discovery.

...
written by avalon , September 21, 2009

"There's no doubt that altruism and self-sacrifice are admirable characteristics — and don't get us wrong, Ms. Stiles earns plenty of kudos for saving her staffer from the dreaded pink slip. But Suze thinks it's this type of caretaking that holds women back. So what's the lesson here?"

No lesson for me, thank you anyways. I'll gladly give up 13% of my pay compared to a man in my position if it means I can continue to care and nurture those around me. I'm not willing to give up my femininity to compete in a male world. I'd rather change that world to encompass my beliefs and desires. Major kudos to Ms. Stiles. She publicly demonstrates what it means to be a caring and loving person even while earning a (man's) paycheck.

...
written by Mia , September 21, 2009

I think Orman seizes any opportunity to browbeat people and it's a stupid stunt a lot of the time. She made a great point, but I hope she did it with respect, and not with disdain for what this woman did.

...
written by A M , September 21, 2009

I think it is a great topic to consider. In my opinion, Suze has a valid point. Ms. Stiles was the ONLY one sacrificing to save others...that's a problem. I think in a lot of corporate settings the staff are the ones doing most of the sacrificing...Ms. Stiles went to the opposite end of the spectrum. There should have been a balance where EVERYONE pitched in to save the company...that might be the best team building yet...and everyone should be rewarded when the economy turns!

...
written by Carissa , September 21, 2009

I highly recommend the documentary "Maxed Out" by James D. Scurlock. Did you know that while Suze Orman encourages improvement to ones' FICO score, her salary is paid, in part, by FICO?

...
written by Laura. , September 21, 2009

there's something about suze orman that just kind of makes my stomach turn, and i can't tell if it's her frosted hair and white teeth and "i can make you rich if you do just what i say", or, in this case, where she seems to be passing judgment on another woman's decision.
first of all, leslie stiles is probably really glad to still have her staffer doing the work, rather than having to redistribute the workload to the remaining people in her office, even if it means taking a cut. more executives and politicians (men and women) should follow her example. second, i agree with avalon. i would rather be sacrificial, altruistic, and nurturing to others (and be a woman!) than take what "i deserve" just to make some kind of gender statement. i think the recession we have been in calls for a change of attitude on all our parts, and it's maybe time to temporarily set aside the ax some are grinding about unfair wages. nothing's fair about the recession. to anyone.

...
written by Kat Caverly , September 21, 2009

Ms. Stiles observation is poignant. Yes, women must stand up and demand what they deserve. But at the same time find a way to be nurturing. That's what makes us different!

...
written by Kim , September 21, 2009

I agree with Suze in a lot of ways, but I think in this instance Ms. Stiles is in the right. The recession has been hard on all of us, but those at the top of the professional ladder can certainly afford to sacrifice more than those below them. I really admire Ms. Stiles for recognizing that, and I think by cutting her own pay and not the pay of those below her she shows that not only does she understand that but that she cares as well - which can go a long way in breeding employee loyalty and workplace happiness. To cut a staffer or even reduce salaries but keep her own in tact would have been careless in my opinion. Go, Ms. Stiles!

...
written by Sharon , September 21, 2009

Times are tough. There are a lot points posted here that I agree with, but some that I don't. We're probably taking it out of context, it was a woman director for a women's organization at a women's conference. Who know's if there are men out there who would take a 25% cut for their staffer. When push comes to shove, senior management has more skin in the game and can afford to lose more. A 25k cut to someone making $2,000,000 a year is no big deal but if you're only making $25k/year and you lose your job, there will be a bigger ripple effect. Depends on the company and the culture. We took away paying for business class travel this year and my goodness you should have heard the uproar! I think to date, we've saved over m. Can't help but think that save a couple jobs. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would say, "I can't give up my first class travel so let's lay off 20 people." That's not the kind of person I'd want to work for, that's for sure.

...
written by clb72 , September 21, 2009

Not every situation is the same, but it's possible Ms. Stiles was actually looking out for herself. Say she sized up the situation and realized that if she cut key employees instead of her own salary, her organization would cease to be effective and would result in the organization losing all of its funding, or going out of business? But if she took the hit, the organization would survive the tough times and she'd earn even more money than before for her wise stewardship?

By the way, I believe this is how evolutionary biologists explain altruism as part of natural selection....

Perhaps it's a business-savvy woman, not a pushover, who sees long-term gain in short-term loss-- precisely the opposite of what we've seen too many male CEOs do.

...
written by Renee , September 21, 2009

I applaud Leslie Stiles for her nurturing and putting someone else first. She saved someone from a world of heartache. When I read that, the first thing I thought was, "a man wouldn't have done that". Surely, she did not put her own family at risk to do so and she will be fine.

Suze Orman is wrong about why women earn less. Unfortunately, there continues to exist, a mentality that women don't need the same pay as men because they don't have the same responsibilities. That is, supporting a family, etc. But, in this day and age, that simply is no longer the case. Sure, women should stand up for themselves, but, not at the expense of the very thing that makes us women in the first place.

...
written by SpiralLogician , September 21, 2009

I applaud Ms. Stiles for saving the jobs of what, no doubt, were mostly other women, who typically make up the majority of support office staff. If women do not support each other, men continue to wield the advantage. We need, more than anything to learn to excel at building loyalty and sticking together in spite of daunting odds. If we behave like men, we are no better than they are, we are perpetuating the greed and selfishness we decry in them. Being imitation men does not make us better at being women, and it does not make us better at business. It simply keeps us divided amongst ourselves, and easier to keep down. To mend this severely broken economy and society, we should not be striving to be more like men; men should be striving to be more like women!
Ms. Stiles knows what she is doing, and those of us who are in a position to do the same should take heed of her example. What she did was incredibly wise in the long view. Her action did more to demonstrate the true spirit of feminism than greedy self absorbed behavior ever could.

...
written by Stephanie Licata , September 21, 2009

There are beautiful differences between men and women that should be celebrated not used in this case to prove a point. We ARE different, that just nature. This doesn't mean that we should be paid differently for performing similar tasks. What Ms. Stiles did was HUMAN not male or female. It's like people making Serena's tennis outburst about race - its just not that. Human behavior is human behavior and should not be watered down all the time to be about gender or race. If our "daily worth" is not to be measured by the size of our bank accounts but our relationship to ourselves, than losing 40% of a salary doesn't decrease the worth of that person, but rather increases their human being quotient 100 fold. Shame on Suzy for failing to BE a woman in praising Ms. Stiles for being a human being.

...
written by janny226 , September 22, 2009

I agree with Beth's comment above that Suze used the platform to further her own views, and I think it was the wrong place and time to do so, however positive her message is overall.

Leslie Stiles probably can afford to take that pay cut, and she knew it, so there's nothing wrong with that AT ALL. When women start to put luxuries like a new house or car (or whatever Stiles could have done with the extra money) ahead of other people's basic needs, we're all screwed.

...
written by TFrindt , September 22, 2009

We all need to learn the difference between sacrifice and compromise. That is the key. Sacrifice is giving metaphorical blood (hurting yourself financially, health wise etc). Compromise is recognizing places where you can help change without harming your own needs and health.


I applaud the people who are willing to sacrifice to help their companies. I wish some of the wall street elite (male or female) who are part of the "toxic assets" would recognize the role they've played in unemployment and reduce their six figure salaries in order to help the issue.

Leslie Stiles is a hero and I wish there were MEN who would follow this example. I could go on and on.

As far as Suze. Yes, women sacrifice way to much in more than just financial ways. They sacrifice time, won't ask for help, sacrifice their health becoming stressed and overworked.

...
written by Rachel , September 23, 2009

I have to say that I learned the hard way that it hurts for years to sacrifice your salary.

I'm suspecting that Leslie Stiles may have negotiated a 12 month reduction on her salary to save a job - which is really heart-felt and certainly sends the message that everyone should pitch-in when things get tough. She may have covered herself in ways that are not obvious to all seeing her making this sacrifice. I hope she did, I didn't have the foresight.

My story might make a few of you cringe. I took a reduced salary in 2002 after the last recession. I was told that I could work part-time taking time when I needed to freelance on the side to make up the loss of income to help bridge the company that I was working for through a slow time. It all worked for a half a year. - better than no job was what I was thinking. I worked a lot, but I was able to keep up the extra work on the side. Then the demands of the job became too great and I could no longer do the freelance work. I was promised that at the beginning of the next year, after we won more business, that I'd get the full salary. The beginning of the year came and instead of getting my raise I got laid-off!

I was now in a big dilemma. I had to list my salary for new jobs. And, the job I did get was within the same network of companies, so I could not lie about the amount of the salary. And, they offered me a similar salary for a lateral job. I had somehow taken about a $50k salary cut in a year and could no longer supplement my income with side work.

The thing that was the real issue was that taking the reduced salary for the year actually reduced my earning potential for 5 years. I probably lost about $200k in total over those 5 years. So, it was a great plan for a year but NOT for the coming years. I had NO idea that I'd be living the sacrifice for years when I did it.

This also affected my work life in very negative ways. I knew that other people around me were making more money, and I had more experience. I was pissed about that and humiliated that I'd had to take a job at such a low salary. So, I decided to work really really hard, didn't take a day off for three months clocking in 70 hour weeks, to try to regain some ground the next year. I was given $5k that year as compensation after being coaxed along to work harder for a large bonus. Now, I was a total stress case, in bad health from working so much, and I was in debt for the first time in my life and still couldn't pay my monthly bills.

I thought that I was doing the right thing taking the pay decrease. I trusted that I would be rewarded for my hard work and dedication. It ended-up hurting my career and my financial well being. I think that this is what Suze was trying to tell women. Don't hurt your career and financial well being

I think that taking a pay cut when you are vested and have a stake in a company that you have some control in can be smart- and you get money later as the business grows. I learned that when you don't have that control anything can happen, like you make a sacrifice and then you loose your job and no one knows how heroic that you were to get you where you were.

My sacrifice helped a lot of people make more money and really hurt me in many ways for years. I regret not being smarter and protecting myself and my future.

...
written by Lovely , September 26, 2009

Interesting. When it comes to money, according to Suze, women need to operate more like men.

I disagree in this instance. In fact, I'd say that executive MEN need to operate more like executive women. Not only is nurturing and caring for your staff a hallmark of a good leader -- a leader for whom staff will bend over backwards, shouldering your share of hard economic times is the right thing to do for the economy, your company AND your staff.

On a related note, CBS News did a report on female vs. male stock brokers on Wall Street with the result being that female dominated firms have a higher return then male dominated firms. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...1487.shtml

...
written by Chris , October 28, 2009

Women passing judgment on each other does far more damage than a voluntary salary decrease. Besides, this was a net gain in the court of public opinion -- when government bailouts were used to pay bonuses to wealthy bank exec's, there was public outcry. When Ms. Stiles gave up part of her salary to retain an employee, there was applause. Never underestimate the power of a good deed done when public eyes are watching.

...
written by anon , November 03, 2009

I don't think that should have been the opening speech, the overall message, to be honest. "Women! Cut your pay!" I think it's interesting the governor chose to open a women's event with that. I don't think a woman would have opened with that. I think Suze was right to address it, to change the tone of the event.

...
written by Sharon , November 05, 2009

Suze is definitely right. We women have an innate sense of "guilt" that drives us to over-sacrifice. It's really true. While I think that Ms. Stiles decision was not COMPLETELY selfless, it is a bit too much...c'mon, 40%??? This is something I am personally trying to be aware of in myself as I mature. You need to take care of yourself FIRST- only then, what you give has more power and blessing. Try it.

...
written by Fern Alix LaRocca CFP® EA , November 10, 2009

Suze has a point but I believe women who own businesses and are responsible for their employees welfare take it more seriously and they should. Many people were laid off with less dignity than a kicked dog.
When you show that you care about your employees- believe me, they reward you back with loyalty, long hours and a happier work environment--- soo lacking in today's work culture.

...
written by Baat Enosh , November 18, 2009

Interesting question, though I don't think we need to choose sides. If we want to create a new world where women have the same rights, we should do just that - "create a new world". What we do instead, is keep trying to fit ourselves into the existing world. This current world, which historically was designed by men, with its current structure and values, where to succeed you can't be altruistic, and if you are, it means you'll be in second place.

The new age is all about creating and designing a world that "characteristics" attributed to women can still lead you to the top.

So instead of thinking we should choose sides - altruistic = second best - let's design a world where being empathetic to others can also put you on top!!!

...
written by toni , January 03, 2010

Hang on - if we made dollar for dollar to our male counterparts, would Suze Orman have said the same thing? We would applaud a guy for doing what she did - wouldn't we? BUT, because we still have to work that much harder to earn the same, of course it's nuts to put too many others ahead of ourselves...but if WE don't who will?

Maybe we should strike one day. Then our daily worth might become blatantly apparent and we could re-set to equal pay for equal work. It seems that the systems, not the people, continue to derail us.

...
written by Denise Rahart , January 14, 2010

Without all the facts, nobody can truly know how altruistic Ms. Stiles was. This shouldn't be a man vs woman issue. Suze has a right to speak about whatever she wants. When it all boils down though, we are all individuals and make choices based on what is best for us. What is best is different for each person. If there were more people who were willing to look at helping others, it would be a much better place to live. Don't do it at your own detriment though. Men and women are BOTH capable of having feelings and wanting to help others.

...
written by Kenia , January 14, 2010

I think it's good to explore being less sacrificial, but I am all for having/doing things in moderation. I think it's good to give and nurter others and highlight our femininity, but at the same time women should be careful not to become doormats (which sometimes they do because they are TOO giving).
Also, did anyone else reading this think about how, rather than just encouraging women to be less sacrificial, we could raise our boys to be MORE giving? What about encouraging men to embrace and value their feminine side in order to strive for a society that appreciates both yin and yang, rather than telling women that the road to equality lies in being more like the boys?

...
written by Kat , January 16, 2010

Here's an interesting comparison... http://csbj.com/2009/03/12/vai...ts-wages/.
Vail Resorts needed to cut their compensation costs. They did it to the entire staff. The CEO elected to forgo his salary for a year and take a 15% paycut for 2010. His salary in 2008 was $3.36M (http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/10/20/daily50.html).
I think the decision he made was good from a leadership perspective. He needed to cut compensation across the board. That goes down a lot better when people look and see the top executives taking a haircut too. His decision wasn't necessarily altruistic--having committed employees is beneficial to him for his long-term job prospects. The fact that it may be in best long term interests doesn’t mean he isn’t a nice guy. People can debate the decision, but regardless of what they think of it, I'm pretty sure no one looked at Mr. Katz like he was a sell-out to his gender.
That’s what I think the problem here is. The merits of taking a pay cut are debatable, but the gender of the person taking the cut shouldn’t matter.

...
written by CM , February 03, 2010

I want to know why the governor didn't kick in a portion of HIS salary in order to compensate his so highly prized staffer, who took it for the team without any support from him.
I agree, get the MEN to do some stepping up. Sometimes, it is necessary for us to make sacrifices for the greater goo; in my opinion, we falter when we fail to make our male counterparts responsible for doing their part too.
So what do you say, Guhv-nah-- what portion of YOUR salary are you sacrificing in order to protect your staff?