Sabbatical: Unsatiated

I poured so much of myself into the GKN Florida greenfield site, and I fully bought into the vision my GM painted for all of us. What's more, I was looked at as the informal leader of the leadership team - I was the one the GM looked to for feedback on how hard to push or when to lighten up, AND I was the one looked to for direction by the other leaders, all of them with many more years of total experience than me and certainly more years in management than me, given this was my first formal management job. It felt like a David and Goliath story and I truly believed that having right on our side, the amazingly intangible but very real thing we were building there, had to win in the end. It just had to! It was in October that I got my first confirmation of what we all mostly privately worried about - that the plant would have to be shut down and all of its wonderful team members laid off, myself included. I was going to be given a life line, and I knew, as my GM had pointed out in my interview for the job initially, I would always land on my feet. My GM wisely let me know the official plans just before Thanksgiving, knowing I would need time to process it. Yet it didn't seem to take the sting off when we actually announced it to the leadership team. I held it together when we brought it to the broader team, but just barely.

The life line I was given was an opportunity to go to a site near San Diego. I was familiar with some of the players already and the prospect of living in San Diego sounded great with one caveat, and I made it known early on - it would be very expensive and I would want to be adequately compensated for the change in living expenses. While the development of the role and offer were slow going, I also happened to have made the personal decision to sell the house I had been renting out in Arizona. So at the time that I was meant to be transitioning to a role in California, I secured over $100,000 in my checking account from the proceeds of the sale. This, along with proceeds from selling my Florida house, would certainly be a healthy down payment for a house in San Diego. But the offer development dragged on, and the clock was ticking before I'd be laid off with the plant closure.

As that was happening, I considered my alternatives. I applied to a handful of jobs in the area, but there weren't many - that was the awesome thing about our site was that it was bringing good jobs to an area that didn't really have them. So much for that! The other thought I had was, honestly, I was so tired, and with six figures in my bank account, living where the cost of living is quite low, I could easily coast without a job for over a year, probably 18 months to 2 years. So I started to seriously consider taking a year off which would still give me time to find a job before I ran out of funds. I would decompress and enjoy days at the beach. I would focus more on my health. We would visit Disney World more. We would travel. It sounded so good and was so within reach.

Having leverage - like 2 years worth of expenses in my back account - made it easy to turn down the initial offer that came from California. It was so far from the number I had in my head that it didn't feel worth negotiating because meeting in the middle would not suffice. I joke that my response was the "No heard round the world," because I was very quickly getting calls from multiple higher ups including the VP as to why I turned down the offer. My response to the question, "Don't you need a job?" was, no, I don't. I have money to last me two years here and a sabbatical sounded really nice. If they couldn't make it worth my while, then I wouldn't move. 

One of the things on my Life List was to take a cruise through the Panama Canal, but that is challenging because it requires a lot of time and money and most people in their working years don't have that kind of time and money. But here I was having seemingly all the time in the world and plenty of money. So I booked the cruise, not knowing if it would be the start of my sabbatical or if GKN would come through with an acceptable offer for me to take, but my start date would have to wait. I needed at least this.

A talk with my Dad also scared me from the idea of a sabbatical. He pointed out that  companies often prefer to hire people who are currently working and being laid off from my last job a year ago wouldn't look too good. In the end, GKN did get me an acceptable offer, and I set my start date to be after I returned from the cruise. We thoroughly enjoyed three days in Miami followed by 16 days on the cruise ship, visiting beaches and a handful of countries in Central and South America as well as multiple stops in Mexico. Most mornings I would read and enjoy quiet time on the balcony or go for a run on the top deck, and then the boy would wake up and we'd hit the buffet. We dined at the buffet a lot - it was so convenient to be able to pick and choose since I'm a picky eater and it gave us the opportunity to try lots of different  things. We killed it at trivia, we drank, we saw wildlife and went on fun excursions. It was both a peaceful vacation and had a little bit of fun and adventure. I could do that for another 16 days, easily. He was not so keen on additional long cruises, getting a little tired of it towards the end.

A week later, we were road tripping across the country to bring our necessities, our dog and our snake to California. Once again, I poured myself into my work. At least until they put a pyscho boss over me - she was ultimately the reason I quickly left. We then moved to Palmdale and I didn't mind tackling stuff at the Skunk Works. And then another psycho boss was put over me and I got a life line again, which resulted in me moving to Texas.

At this point, the work I do doesn't feel like it makes as much of a difference. I hold my time in Florida as the absolute best part of my career and shutting that site down was the absolute worst thing. I know I'm still fortunate to always land on my feet, and I try to remain grateful for that. But I'm so disillusioned by the multitudes of bad bosses and what they do to their organizations and how helpless I am to change it, even as much as I am hopeful and try to fight the good fight.

The timing of the sabbatical when I first seriously considered it ended up being bad - it was just at the start of the COVID pandemic and so my plans to travel and do all those fun things would have been severely hampered - so it was fortuitous that between the fear my Dad put in me and the offer coming up to my expectations, I opted to continue working. But now that I'm once again financially stable and feeling a bit burnt out or in a rut at work, the idea of that sabbatical keeps cropping up. I truly probably needed it then, and not doing it weighs heavily on me. Yet, I'm not quite in the same situation financially - I don't have as much runway. I've also been spending a bit lavishly on vacations, almost like I'm rewarding myself with mini sabbaticals, but it's not enough.

I just got back from the UK and thought that would leave me refreshed. But the truth is, I sat there at work a few days back and just didn't want to work anymore, not that day, not the next day, not ever again. It's so not like me. Early in my career, I liked every new job better than the last even though I had thought the last one was the best job ever. That stopped being the case after Florida, and it feels like I've flatlined or gone downhill even. That little UK vacation was not enough. I need to rejuvenate my soul somehow. It begs the question - what would be enough? Do I need the full 2 weeks I used to take? Do I need a month? Perhaps it was less the length of time but more of the activity. I had originally envisioned treating myself to a relaxing place in Santorini, Greece for my 40th birthday. But the prospect of sharing a vacation with Sam was enough to persuade me to do something other than Greece which he refused to do, and I was able to convince myself logically that the UK was a good replacement because I'd be able to knock off a bunch from my Life List. But that view and that rejuvenating doing nothingness was missed, I suppose. In hindsight, while Sam was visiting his parents in Turkey, I probably could have given myself a few days in Greece. But timing was challenging as it was, so maybe not.

Whatever it is, I know I need something more. I have this unsatiated desire to shut off. It was so refreshing when I got to my hotel room yesterday here in LA. I realized I didn't have to go anywhere, didn't have to talk to anyone, didn't have to do anything. At home, I feel guilty if I'm not doing something productive, and there's always something to do. The house needs something, or the dishes need to be put away, or I should exercise. Here, in those moments, I was truly my own person, and it felt amazing. I think that's what I love most about cruises - they take care of just about everything for you, so you have no responsibilities (except keeping to a schedule for excursions and meals and the like - but if you don't do those, then who cares?). I'm hoping to take a decently long trip to Australia to visit Sam and do some new things and some revisits. The question is - will Sam tolerate me for an extended chill vacay with him? Haha, to be continued!

A Kinda Really Sorta Perfect Day

I love traveling and vacation days as much as the next woman, hell, probably even more.  But there are days that you have to work.  And on days you have to work, I've proven that you can still sorta kinda have a really perfect have-to-work kinda day.  Here's how it went.  

I went to bed the night before early enough that I got a FULL 8 hours of sleep!  Usually if I get 7 hours, I'm thrilled!  

I drank a glass of water before leaving for work.  This starts what I call "The Water Cycle" which, very simply, is a means of getting enough water packed into as early in the day as possible.  Most of us never get enough water throughout the day, and it's a bad idea to drink a ton of water at the end of the day, at least for me, because that means getting up multiple times per night to use the restroom.  So my mantra pertaining to water consumption, while hiking and in general, is "drink early, drink often."  So I guzzle 12 ounces before I leave for work.  This means that before an hour of work is done, I will need to get up to use the restroom.  I bring my cup with me (the one I keep at work is 14 ounces), and refill it on the way to the restroom.  I drink at least a third on the way to the restroom.  On my way back to my desk, I drink another third or so.  In another, say, 40 minutes, I have to use the restroom again, and I bring my cup with me, and so on.  When I do this right, I can drink a gallon of water a day, most of which is before 6 pm, ensuring that I won't disrupt my precious sleep too much.  

I get ready for work, kiss my boyfriend, pet the dog, and I'm off.  I unplug my car and throw the charger in the hatch.  

I work through my German lesson on the way to work.  Each lesson is about 28 minutes, which is just about the average time of my commute.  I usually finish my lesson as I'm pulling into the garage.  Sometimes, on extraordinarily speedy days, I have to sit in my car for a minute to finish the lesson, but usually no more than a minute or two.  Today I was actually repeating a lesson I had done over the weekend, because I felt I needed the extra practice.  It paid off, I did really well this time around!  Excellent!  

I park my car, pull out the charger from the hatch and plug it in.  I grab my three bags: my purse, my gym bag and my food bag, including my breakfast shake, my lunch, a light dinner, a diet soda, four perfectly portioned healthy snacks, and three bags of candy for the suckers who come by my desk in need of chocolate.  

I go up the elevator alone, which is nice because it helps me gather my thoughts.  Sometimes I'm pressured to socialize before I'm ready and I'm still in German-lesson mode or worse, thinking about an audio book I've been listening to that causes me to be completely thrown off by small talk.  I mean, at least the German lessons are essentially small talk, I just have to remember to switch my brain to English.  

I catch the door just before it locks.  When its locked, one must use his or her badge to unlock the door, a small inconvenience in the grand scheme of things, but that somehow is disproportionately glorious when one catches the door before it locks.  

I decide, in the name of getting my 10,000 steps, not to put my food away on my way to my desk.  I greet my colleagues, the few that were around (most people in my row are on vacation or having babies).  I bring everything to my desk first, then sort through things and make a run to the kitchen to put my lunch and dinner away at that time.  

I boot up the computer, turn my two external monitors on, because who doesn't need three monitors.  I scan through my email, answer a few dire ones, and get to work on planning.  Tuesdays and Wednesdays are planning days in my department, meaning we have to do the majority of the tactical parts of our jobs on these two days.  On Mondays I do a lot of prep work, and usually get a head start on some basic planning, which means that because yesterday was a holiday, I'm instantly feeling behind.  

One of my coworkers had made and brought in chips and an amazing green chile dip we affectionately call "crack dip."  I decided to bypass a couple of my healthy snacks in favor of crack dip.  It was sooooo worth it.  Besides, I am not sure I would have eaten enough calories without it.  This, of all things, has been a surprising and disturbing revelation recently for me.  When I thought I was "being good" by eating healthy, low calorie and low carb foods, I actually wasn't eating enough at all.  So instead of losing weight, my body was in a starvation mode I suppose, and conserving all the fat it could.  Talk about the worst scenario!  Here I was depriving myself of delectable food in the name of losing weight, and my weight loss was stagnant or minimal at best.  So frustrating!  Anyways, I've learned my lesson, so now I'm working harder at balancing eating enough and not eating too much.  I can't say I've nailed it completely, but today I ended up just right, which is a good start.  

I plug away at my planning, answering urgent emails as I go.  I didn't get quite everything done, but I got more done than on a typical Monday, and it wouldn't be good if I was expected to complete all of Monday's and Tuesday's tasks in one day anyways.  Throughout the day, The Water Cycle is effective in not only getting me close to my goal of 96 ounces of water, but it also helps me boost my step count.  Because I had the chips and crack dip, I wasn't really hungry when it was time for lunch, so I ate a little late but made sure I ate so I wouldn't be thinking about snacking.  When I realized I was getting frustrated with my work, I cracked open my Diet Pepsi, because for whatever reason, that little bit of a caffeine hit seems to perk up my mood when I'm crabby.  There are lots of days I bypass the soda altogether, because it gets in the way of my water consumption, but I felt it was important today to keep me happy.  

I ended the day with fewer emails than I started with, which is a good thing.  I learned of a few more problems, but dealt with them as best I could for the time.  Still more planning to do tomorrow, so it will still be a crunch, but I felt good about what I accomplished.  

I wrapped up a little later than usual (less than 30 minutes late), grabbed my things and headed to the gym.  I was planning on primarily doing weights, but the ab machine was broken which was terribly disappointing because I freaking love that thing.  So I did four sets on three different machines for arms, and did some legs.  

I felt guilty getting all dressed in workout clothes without really breaking much of a sweat, and my nagging FitBit app indicated that I had yet to hit my goals for steps, miles, calories burned or active minutes.  I hadn't drank all my water for the day, either.  So I filled up my water bottle and got on a treadmill.  Normally my cardio machine of choice at the gym is the bike, but I was thinking that the treadmill would do double duty by giving me my steps, in addition to cardio.  

I only walked, as I was ill-prepared to run.  I didn't even have socks on, and I was wearing my dancing keds, because I had been planning on doing weights only.  Note to self: wear good (running) shoes to the gym always.  The girl next to me started running, after about five minutes of me trying to keep pace with her power walking (ugggh).  I am one of the rare creatures that enjoys a good run, although it's pretty much always outside, and most enjoyable when its not 100 degrees out.  But I've been trying to be good to my knees, and in addition to having bad footwear for running, I also was wearing a fairly loose sports bra.  What I mean is, I need to wear four super restrictive sports bras in order to feel appropriate to run among colleagues (the gym is, after all, in my office building).  So I didn't run.  I jammed to the tunes on my phone via headphones, and passively watched the headlines on the TVs above me.  But it turned out, the shoes were kinda awful for walking, too.  Ten minutes in I was regretting getting on, but you know, you have this sort of gym pressure, everyone knows how long I've been on the machine, and they'll all think I'm stupid if I get off after any less than 30 minutes.  So I put in my time, begrudgingly.  The FitBit app still didn't indicate I had hit any of my goals, but I was over it.  

I listened to my audio book as I headed south in my car.  It is so thoroughly entertaining, and there were some good insights today that I will want to go back to and reference later.  I debated getting a hard copy. and made a mental note to check for one at the library.  That reminded me that I did have another book to pick up at the library, so I decided to head there before going home.  It would give me more steps, anyways.  

Finally, after being home and doing a few small chores, I hit my 10,000 steps, and most of my goals were met, including the water consumption goal which I exceeded by logging a full gallon of water.  

I took a glorious hot shower and put on clean comfies for the night.  

I spent about 40 minutes reading my current book.  

Then, I was so thrilled with how my day has gone, I decided to write this blog.  

So even though I spent 10 hours at work, and even though there were issues and things that could get me down, my shoes weren't suited for the impromptu 30 minute walk on the treadmill, my arms are sore from lifting weights, and my house isn't entirely clean, I'd say it's all about perspective.  I had a kinda sorta really perfect day.  There's only one more goal on my FitBit I have yet to hit - I'm at 4.5 of 5 miles.  So with that, I will sign off so I can do laps around my house until I hit that stupid goal and tire myself out to get another 8 hours of sleep.  

Fairness in the Workplace

I usually enjoy links that Influencers on LinkedIn that I follow, like Richard Branson, post, but today I came across an atrocious piece from Virgin that gave me a visceral reaction, thus inspiring me to write this blog instead of going back to sleep on a Sunday morning.  The article was on the topic of fairness in the workplace, and was part of a larger series about the future of work.  I was intrigued by the title because I have been a victim of unfair treatment in the workplace, in my and many others' opinions.  What's more, I have since found refuge in a company culture that is almost completely the opposite.  But as I read the article, while there were some interesting ideas in there, like a tab at the local pub compliments of the company, all I saw was that perks and benefits were being equated to fairness.  Listen, perks are nice, benefits are great, but they do not level unfair playing fields.  Fairness is about being paid for the value you bring, being promoted based on your merits and accomplishments, equal opportunities and clear career path options.  

In fact, some of the perks and benefits listed have the potential to only widen the fairness gap instead of solving for it: the tab at the local pub may be appealing to someone who likes to relax with a drink, but what about people who don't drink?  What about recovering alcoholics?  What about people who are trying to lose weight by not drinking so much?  I'm not going to say that this alone is BAD, that drinking is BAD, but I am going to say that it sends the wrong message.  I think people who want to drink will drink, and let them do that on their own dime (myself included).  Sure, I paid for my employees' drinks when I ran a brewery tour company, but drinking was part of the job, in that case.  In general, I think companies should promote things that are good for you: free or subsidized salad bars and gym memberships, or gyms at the companies' facilities, discounts on 5k and marathon races, financial support for Weight Watchers or AA or other support groups, medical benefits, etc.  Most companies have some sort of medical benefits and short-term and long-term disability, so I think it makes sense from a long-term financial view to support things that make your employees healthier, avoiding higher medical expenses down the road.  That's a win-win.  Paid time off for volunteer work is another great one, good for your employees and for the community.  

The article talks about how fairness is hard to quantify, and I agree.  It also points to it boiling down to people saying they love their jobs or not, and that also makes good intuitive sense, as long as there are no but's after the phrase, "I love my job."  But I think we can also do better.  I know some companies try to measure workload by inventory dollars or SKU counts in supply chain, but even that can lead to unfair results; certain SKUs may be worth more to the company or be more difficult to manage for various reasons (quality, supplier relations, lead times, etc).  Some companies use more direct surveys to ask their people if they feel they are paid fairly and treated fairly in terms of promotions, etc.  I used to be a little cynical about this: does anyone ever feel that they are paid "enough" for the crap that they endure for the company?  But now I'm a little more optimistic, I think it is possible to compensate employees in such a way that they are happy in their jobs, and that is fair.  At least one company I worked at had a measure called "regrettable attrition," and the fact only that this measure existed bothered me, especially because it was my understanding that they never fought to keep those who would fall into this measure, they just accepted it as a consequence of an unfair work environment.  And sure enough, when I left, nobody asked me what it would take to keep me.  I certainly believe that I was another tick in that regrettable attrition measure.  

What was so utterly shocking to me when I finally told the world I was leaving my previous company was the responses I got.  Normally, people say things like, "Congrats on the new role," and "Best of luck in your future endeavors."  Not for me.  The people who knew me well, the people who worked with me, said things like, "I'm happy you're getting out," and, "Congrats on escaping," and, "You deserve better."  It gave me the eerie feeling that I had put up with the BS for far too long, that I should have thrown in the towel long before I did.  And they were probably right.  I had let the negative feedback get to me, my ego wanting to prove them wrong, and so I had worked harder and done better only to continue to be put down over and over again.  Perhaps I shouldn't have wasted my time.  There is no proving them wrong in an unfair environment: where gender has more to do with promotability than accomplishments, intelligence, and capabilities, where leadership is judged by how much of an asshole you are instead of your ability to influence and complete collaborative initiatives, where fingers are pointed in all directions but nobody claims responsibility.  

I think one of the best philosophies on fairness that I've heard came from Michael Dell, and I heard this a long time ago from someone else so I have no idea if its valid anymore (or if it ever was).  The idea was simple but shocking: when someone does a good job, promote them and cut his or her responsibilities.  It's a jarring idea because usually promotions come with more responsibility, but the idea is that you are freeing high-potential people to fulfill their potential, instead of burdening them with more work because they've done well with less.  Another great idea comes from Google, and no its not the free food, but the ability to spend some work time on whatever projects the employees want.  I think its something like 70% of their time is spent on projects, and 30% of their time they spend how they choose, related to work of course, but their own ideas instead of assignments from higher-ups.  This speaks volumes in contradiction to the micro-managing and slave-driving we see at other companies.  

One thing that has always bothered me, just a slight itch and not something I would lead a massive war campaign against, but still bothered by, is the idea of maternity leave.  Some companies are making it more fair by allowing paternity leave as well, and I think that's a good first step.  But this means that people can leave their jobs for several months, and come back with no consequences.  So if you have a lot of kids, you will keep leaving your job and coming back, yet if you choose to never have kids, then you're always working except for your allotted vacation time.  Now I get the reasoning behind it, you aren't going to put a newborn into daycare on day 3 of its life.  And I wouldn't want people to lose their jobs because they decided to have a family.  And I get that maternity leave isn't the same as vacation, that motherhood is challenging and is a different kind of work.  But still, it is time away from one's career that is only granted by having a baby.  All I am saying is that not being a parent shouldn't work against you.  Some companies have sabbaticals during which its employees aren't allowed to work, and are encouraged to travel or relax or do whatever.  I would make the argument that, in the spirit of fairness, sabbaticals should be granted in lieu of maternity or paternity leave every so many years to non-parents.  You can choose to have a baby and go on leave, but if, in three years say, you haven't happened to have a baby, we'll give you a sabbatical, maybe only 5 or 6 weeks, but something to get you out of the office for a while, to reinvigorate you.  If we can get that, I'd say that would be a nice fair equalization.  My next step would be to get sabbatical showers in lieu of wedding and baby showers, but that's for another day.  

There was a great reward system at one of my previous companies: if you did something extraordinary, i.e. beyond your job requirements and something that has no impact to your performance and accomplishments, someone could nominate you for an award.  They called them "Bravo Awards," and there were bronze, silver and gold levels.  They came with monetary rewards, so it wasn't just a silly piece of paper.  I think it's important to make it easy for people to reward one another, and encourage them to do so, because it gives helpful people a reason to be helpful.  Otherwise, when you're just tasked with helping all the time, with no reward, no acknowledgment or appreciation, it just becomes a burden to be helpful, and become less inclined to help others.  Some of the smartest people I know resisted being helpful to others, because if you help them once, you are burdened to help them all the time.  The people that receive this kind of help I refer to as leeches.  They always need help, and once they find someone smart, they will task them with every problem they have.  Imagine if you had three such leeches, people who always interrupt your work for whatever issue they think is a catastrophe on their desk, and come to you weekly or daily for help, even though you are not an expert in their problem or have already taught them how to fix it before.  How productive are you going to be if you constantly have to help everyone else you work with to do their basic jobs?  At a minimum, the reward system will at least prevent smart people from hiding and resisting being helpful, because it at least incentivizes them to be helpful (if they get recognized on a regular basis).  But I would take it a step further: find the people who are being rewarded a lot, and ask them who is a burden.  Maybe those burdens need more training and development, so you can focus in on your weak links and build them up; or maybe they are just weak links and need to be let go.  Either way, use the reward system to root out the leeches, they are not serving your company well if they cannot do their jobs without constant help, and reward the most helpful people by freeing them of their leeches so they are not discouraged from helping others.  And for the people who are getting rewarded a lot, give them opportunities to do less tactical work and do some teaching and development for the group, or free them to create the tools and processes that make the job better as a whole.  Find out what they want to do, and give them the time and space to do it.  

Promotions are a sore subject for me.  To an extent, I think promotions should be more team-based, almost voting-based.  A manager two or three levels up may not be aware of all the nuances of the team dynamics, but the team does.  So if a new leader of a group is needed, shouldn't the group at least have a say in who is to be their new manager?  If you were to put it to a vote, and the entire team wants a specific team member to take over, and the hiring manager was going to take a person from another department and put him or her in charge, wouldn't you second guess that decision?  Certainly, I think the hiring manager should have the last say, veto power if you will, but getting the team involved in the decision can dissolve some of the political nuances.  After all, people talk a big game can do so in interviews or with colleagues they rarely interact with, but if you work with someone every day, you know what they are really like.  It also could encourage the team to be better team players; if they want a promotion in the future, they better be good to their colleagues or they won't get their votes.  The same goes for outside the team, too; if you want to become the head of another team, show those people you would be a good addition to their team well in advance of the job opening.  I think it would change the whole dynamic in the work place if you knew that your future promotions depended on people voting you in, not just an interview with the hiring manager.  Now, to the point of the hiring manager, I got burned because apparently mostly-positive reviews with one less-than-perfect score on them prevented the hiring manager from promoting me, as an HR rule supposedly.  I don't know how much of that was politicizing or whether there was a completely different truth behind those stories, but nevertheless, the bottom line for me is that a hiring manager should be able to promote or hire whomever he or she chooses.  If the selection goes against what the entire team wants, maybe some justification is needed, but hiring managers need to have the final say.  

I think there's still more work to do on fairness beyond these ideas.  It's a tough concept to address, no doubt, especially because people measure fairness differently.  One person may see hours worked as the measure: if I'm working 55 hours per week and you're only working 40, then I must have an unfair amount of work to do.  Other people may see it as productivity: if I can handle 5 product lines and you can only handle 1, then I have an unfair amount of work.  Even physical labor is challenging: if Josh can move 50 units an hour and Melissa can only move 35, then Josh is doing an unfair amount of work.  I think the only way around these judgments is clear policy by company.  I am whole-heartedly against the institution that you have to work x amount of hours.  If I feel satisfied with the work I've done for the day, and its only been 7 hours, or 35 hours for the week, why must I stay and make up things to do or play games in a secretive way?  I've known people who monitor the parking lot, waiting for their boss's car to leave, and then they leave five minutes after.  I tried this a few times, myself, and then realized that my boss drives really slow and goes the same way home, so I would catch up to him and could get "caught" unless I always drove like molasses.  But if a company states clear goals and objectives, and allows individuals to work whatever hours necessary to achieve those, then there is no question as to what is fair.  I have done x, y, and z, and even though it is only 2:30 pm, I am leaving.  Conversely, if the company wants to measure hours, then say so.  We work 45 hours per week, and no more, in order to ensure our employees are productive at work.  Studies show that working 55 to 70 hours per week actually decreases your productivity per hour, so this has merit.  If the policy is set by number of hours, than more productive employees will have to find projects to work on, take on more responsibility or maybe slow their work down and do better quality work, but whatever it is, that is simply the expectation.  If you don't like a company's fairness policy, find another one.  That, I think, is the future of work in regards to fairness.