What would you do if you weren’t practicing law?

/4 Comments/in , , /by

One reflection exercise I suggest to disenchanted lawyers is to contemplate what they’d be doing if not practicing law.  The reason is not to identify the lawyer’s next career, but instead to get in touch with what might be preferable and why, and then to consider whether that quality could exist in a legal practice.  Finding the joy the long way around, really.

For instance, one client said she would teach if she weren’t practicing law.  She said she’d enjoy imparting knowledge, challenging her students, and getting the intellectual high of an exchange about principles.  She said she’d want to teach something on the college level, maybe above, where her students would really want to be in class and would be more likely to be engaged.  We explored what she thought she’d like about that kind of teaching, what benefits she felt it would bring, and so on.  When we turned to see whether she could find similar experiences in the law, she indeed found them — not, as you might be expecting, as an adjunct professor (though that would have been a good choice) but through doing training in her firm for new associates.  She found that she got energy from working with these fresh-faced idealists and that she was able to bring that energy back to her practice, with the added benefit of knowing something about which associates she’d like to work on her matters.

So, if you’re unhappy — or even if you are happy, but you’re willing to explore what could be even better — I challenge you to play with this idea.  What would you be doing if not practicing, why, and can you get that “why” in practice?   What steps must you take to do so?

Gender discrimination and work/life balance

/3 Comments/in , /by

One common thread in the work/life balance conversation is the extent to which the issue can and should be cast as a female issue or a mother’s issue.  So perhaps it’s no surprise that a female shareholder has now sued her law firm for sex discrimination.

Alyson J. Kirleis, a labor & employment litigator, began work at Dickie McCamey & Chilcote as a law clerk in 1986 and eventually became a shareholder.  A mother of two, Kirleis alleges that the chair of the firm’s board of directors told her that she was spending too much time working and not enough at home, that “women whose priorities were straight were those who relinquished their status as shareholders in the firm and who worked part-time so as to be able to spend more time with their husbands and children.”  She claims that she was also told that the firm’s “gals” would prepare cases for trial, but male attorneys would actually try them.  The suit includes other allegations of rather blatant discrimination.

Kirleis is working at the firm while the case is pending and, according to her attorney, would like to continue though she seeks different treatment for herself and for the other women at the firm.

The firm has issued a statement denying the allegations:  “We’re diappointed that one of our shareholders, not an employee but an owner in the firm who has worked with us for 18 years and who still works at our firm, has chosen to take this course. . . . We do not and never have discriminated against anyone on the basis of gender or in any other way.”

Carolyn Elefant shared the story in mid-November. Joan C. Williams, a professor at UC-Hastings College of Law who teaches employment law, cites some surprising statistics in an ABA article (no longer available):

“There’s been a 40 percent increase in this type of case in the past 10 years,” Williams says. “We’ve documented more than 800 lawsuits based on family responsibility against employers in general, and we’ve found 32 other lawsuits of this type against legal employers. Of those 32, it’s a mix of attorneys and staff, but most of the cases have been filed by attorneys.”

“It certainly looks as if [family responsibility] cases are the new face of discrimination law based on the fact that they’re growing so rapidly, when employment discrimination cases have fallen 23 percent, based on our research,” Williams says.

The article also quotes Diana J. Veilleux, a DC-based employment lawyer, as questioning whether there’s been an increase in “family responsibility” cases and suggesting that those that are filed are taken more seriously now than in the past.

Although I’m just barely conversant in employment law, I find this trend interesting.  Why are “family responsibility” cases any different than garden-variety sex discrimination cases?  Does it mean something different that some law firms talk positively about work/life balance on the one hand and discriminate on the other, or does it simply add texture to an already-existing problem?  The allegations that Kirleis has made that don’t concern direct work responsibilities include claims of sexually explicit entertainment at firm functions, visits by the firm’s male attorneys including members of the executive committee to topless bars, and that a male attorney exposed himself to her during a firm golf outing in the early 1990s.  These sorts of claims are nothing new, unfortunately.  While it’s shocking (if true) that any firm, much less one that practices labor & employment law, would permit such activity and behavior, it’s hardly news that such behavior does occur in some workplaces.

It’s unfortunately difficult for me to envision what this case would look like if the plaintiff were a man, though it could happen.  If it did — if a male lawyer had been told that fathers belong at home and that men would be responsible for preparing cases and women would try them, if members of the firm sponsored sexually explicit entertainment at firm functions followed by visits to a male strip club (does Chippendale’s still exist?), if a woman had exposed herself to him — would we be calling this a “family responsibility” case?  Or would we simply see it as a sex discrimination case?  And would it matter?

Would the Kirleis case be any less strong without the allegations that she was encouraged to relinquish her status as shareholder and to take a part-time schedule?  Would it be any less strong without the claims that she was told women would prepare cases and men would try them, and without the claims of sexually explicit entertainment and harrassment?  I suggest that the answers are no and yes, respectively.  And that’s why I question this categorization of the case as a “family responsibility” matter.

But, people more knowledgeable than me have so categorized it.  What does that mean?

I’m curious whether it means we need to treat the desire that some lawyers have for a work/life balance that respects and facilitates a personal life as a gender-neutral issue.  In the desire to retain women in the profession, it may be easy to over-invite a woman to a part-time schedule so she can fulfill her family responsibilities, possibly then making her feel that she “should” take that route whether she wants to or not — in the words of the ABA article title, that she’s being forced onto the mommy track.  Presumably, most of us would recognize the line between encouraging a parent to attend to her (or his) child as s/he feels appropriate, whether that involves taking a part-time schedule or making other changes, versus sex discrimination masked as concern.  But no one wants to open the door to a lawsuit, especially if on a cause of action that’s in vogue and getting lots of attention.

Wouldn’t it make sense, at a bare minimum, to treat this as an issue for parents and not for mothers?  Although biology does dictate that women will always take time from work to bear a child, caring for the child after the mother has recovered from childbirth may fall to either parent, or to both.  Wouldn’t we be operating from a more robust reality if we were to recognize that, and to understand that some men will want to stay home with children?  And wouldn’t that help to separate work/life balance from invidious sex discrimination?

Post # 100… Discussing my own work/life balance

/7 Comments/in , , /by

I’m astonished to be hitting post #100 this morning.  How time does fly!

I’ve been thinking lately, with something between amusement and horror, about my own work/life balance.  One of the things I’ve learned as a coach is that I very often end up working with people who face the same issues that confront me.  No idea why that is, but I’ve observed it repeatedly.  Lately, work/life balance has hit at the top of that chart.

I thought it might be helpful to be open about my own work/life balance challenges just so you readers will be aware that I’m not writing about work/life balance from a white, fluffy cloud somewhere in the sky that allows me to observe the issue without ever being embroiled in it.  Some days, I wish that were the case!

Because this is a me-centric post (using self as an example), I’ve taken the unusual step of breaking the post here.  If you’d like to know more, read on.  And otherwise, see you in Wednesday’s post!

Read more

“Work-life balance nonsense”

/3 Comments/in , , /by

JD Hull has a terrific blog called “What About Clients?(tm) ”  You can probably guess the focus, and I encourage you to check it out.

A recent post titled WAC?’s Usual ‘Muscle Boutique’ Rant Gains Currency? includes the following:

It’s time for lawyers with the right credentials . . . [to] chuck . . . your work-life balance nonsense (the first 8 to 10 years for associates, and lawyering done right after that, should be hard work even for the gifted) . . . .

Work/life balance isn’t the focus of Hull’s post, but I was struck by his comment because I think it typifies the negative view of work/life balance that I described here, in which “work/life balance” is taken to mean a desire to work less and still reap the rewards of working hard.

We all have some work/life balance.  By definition, whether it’s 50/50 or 90/10, there’s a “balance” even if the ratio is markedly uneven.  The question then becomes, what does each lawyer want his or her balance to be?  What are the lawyer’s priorities and values?  As I said in my previously-cited post, work/life balance can never outweigh the need to provide robust, excellent client service.  But it’s possible (and necessary) to adjust the balance in whatever direction is most desirable for a particular lawyer and still to provide excellent service.   Such an adjustment will lead to certain consequences, whether it’s rapid advancement in career, a deeply satisfying personal life, handsome or sub-optimal earnings, burnout or boredom, or most likely some shifting mix of these and other consequences.

And it’s important to recognize that work/life balance doesn’t necessarily mean working less.  Just as there are lawyers who want to work only a 40-hour week, there are lawyers who would hate such a restricted practice, a point that Stephanie West Allen makes vividly in her post Hot Worms and Workaholics: Let the Workers Be!  Work/life balance is all about finding what works for each lawyer, whether that’s working a “little” or working a “lot”.  The question is what makes for a satisfying life; practice is one component of that for lawyers, but how much of a component will vary from person to person.

I agree with Hull that good lawyering is hard work.  There’s no question that practicing law well is demanding.  It requires consistently excellent performance with very little margin for error, it’s intellectually rigorous, and it’s tough to keep up with the needs of multiple clients and to work effectively in what often feels like not enough time to do all that needs to be done.  And client needs are and must be paramount.  Even so, the suggestion to chuck “work/life balance nonsense” doesn’t ring true to me.  I’d say instead, chuck the fantasy that practicing law is easy.  Look for a way to have a satisfying career and a satisfying personal life, but don’t expect it to be an easy or static path, and don’t expect what works for one lawyer to work for another.

Dual career and commuter families

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s tough to be married to a lawyer.  I should know, since my husband is a lawyer; pity for him that I am too.  The careers that our spouses or partners engage in may determine quite a bit about our lives.  Lawyers are often accused of arguing in a relationship as if in court, or of cross-examining children rather than gently probing.  Some doctors have the reputation of bringing clinical detachment home.  Scientists may demand amounts of evidence that would exhaust ordinary mortals — other, of course, than lawyers.  Social workers stereotypically give so much to others that they may find it difficult to be emotionally available for their own families.  Fortunately, all of these suggestions describe nothing more than inclinations that may or may not hold true for any individual and, if true, may be overcome with an intentional decision to behave otherwise.

What about dual career families, though?  Each partner will bring the tendencies of his or her career to the table, along with the career’s demands.  I remember that in law school one professor advised married students to seek out the best jobs they could find without regard to location.  That advice may or may not work for all couples, but it’s certainly a popular approach.  The result is to have a commuter family, where partners may live apart for a time or permanently.

I’ll explore this topic more over the coming weeks, but it was put into sharp focus by an article in the October 1 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, available for only a few days for free here.  (The online version requires free registration and does not include photos; when the link expires, it will remain available in the archives for a small fee.)  The article describes a marriage between an Emory University professor, living in Atlanta, and a Samburu herdsman living in Kenya.   Imagine the cultural and business conflicts generated by such differences, and exemplified in this story:

Sidney Kasfir’s cellphone went off, signaling an urgent text message from her husband: “We are being attacked by cattle rustlers.  We are abandoning Tinga.”

Kashir was terrified.

“I was very worried that somebody in my family would get killed,” said Kashir, who was at a conference in Senegal when her husband, Kirati Lenaronkoito, messaged her from his home in Kenya on his cellphone.

Now, your dual career family doesn’t seem so challenging anymore, does it?

Working Mother magazine’s Top 100 places for moms to work

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Working Mother magazine released its annual list of the top 100 places for moms to work, selected on the basis of each company’s flexibility, leave time for new parents, child care, elder care and the number of women occupying top jobs.

Three law firms made the cut: Arnold & Porter, Covington & Burling, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

The website for Working Mother magazine is down at the time of writing, but I’ve linked it in case it comes back up.  Bad day for it to be down, huh?

When personal life impacts professional life

/0 Comments/in , , /by

One of the ways that I describe the work I do is “professional and personal coaching for lawyers.”  Although I occasionally do what amounts to life coaching for someone who happens to be a lawyer, my passion lies in helping lawyers develop their professional lives, which often relates in some way to their personal lives.

Sometimes, the relationship between the professional and personal sides of life becomes blurred.  That may be a work/life balance issue that calls for reflection on the degree, if any, to which the lawyer wants to separate the two.

But sometimes, a lawyer will experience a personal problem that he can’t keep entirely separate from his professional life.  Serious illness is one example, though the challenge there tends to come when the actual crisis is over, when recovery begins.  My take on that situation is rather clear: do whatever is necessary to ensure your reclaimed health, no matter what professional consequences may follow, but conduct your affairs so that your clients don’t suffer.

Then there are the personal circumstances that don’t have the potential for personal life-or-death consequences.  Examples are a family member’s prolonged illness or death, facing the prospect or reality of divorce.  Although most of us are practiced at putting on the “game face” and getting on with work, events of this magnitude may make it difficult or impossible to manage that.  Each person is, of course, different, and no solution will fit everyone.  Here, however, are some ideas of coping mechanisms.

Support.  Get the support you need, whether that’s counseling, a support group, a coach, or some blend of the three.  Asking for help may not come naturally, but it can help you avoid mental or emotional tunnel vision and help you identify your best options.

Consider whether to share your news.  Depending on the situation, you may need to let a colleague or supervisor at your firm know what’s going on.  There’s no need to share details, but especially if you suspect that there will be an actual conflict between your professional responsibilities and your personal ones, it’s often best to let someone else know.

Practice centering exercises.  Whether it’s meditation, yoga, or just deep breathing, physical activities can help you center yourself so you are better prepared to deal with work while you’re working and less likely to be pulled away mentally or emotionally by whatever is causing you distress.  This can be as simple as sitting in silence for 3-4 minutes and paying attention to your breath, gently releasing any thoughts that may come up.  The beauty of a practice this simple, of course, is that you can revisit it at any moment, without even letting others know you’re doing it.

Excellent self-care.  Get enough sleep.  Eat real, healthy food.  Don’t drink too much alcohol.  Keep your body well-hydrated.  When you’re under severe stress, it’s easy to let his go, but the extra effort will serve you well.

Be realistic.  You may need to cut back on your hours, take a “vacation,” or even take a leave of absence.  Or you may not.  But don’t try to be a hero.  A realistic appraisal of your energy will keep you from taking on too much, causing yourself to crash and burn.

Reflect.  Journal writing can be a terrific tool for working through difficult issues.

Manage your energy.  Take advantage of the days when you have sufficient energy to work hard.  Although you can take steps to keep your energy as high as possible (the other steps suggested here, for instance), it’s a reasonably safe bet that your energy will lag at some point, and you’ll be able to work with that rhythm if you maximize your output when you can.

Remember that this, too, will pass.  It’s a trite saying that may not offer much comfort in the moments of deepest pain, but the difficult times will not last forever.

Technology — does it help work/life balance or hurt it?

/0 Comments/in , /by

We all have email and web access these days, and it’s difficult to limp along without it.  My DSL went down for about 6 days recently, and I realized for the first time how dependent I’ve become on Internet access to get information, to touch base with friends and clients, and for recreation.  Amazing.

Many of us now carry BlackBerries or Treos or the like.  If we choose to be — or perhaps if we fail to make an active choice — we’re potentially accessible around the clock.  That brings many advantages, including the ability to get away from the office and still respond immediately to client needs, which in many cases facilitates work/life balance.

But have you ever spent time with someone who interrupts your conversation to reflexively check incoming emails or accept run-of-the-mill phone calls?  It’s infuriating.  Unless there’s a good reason for our family members or social companions to put us on “hold” while they respond to a technological intrusion, it’s just plain rude behavior.  And yet, even as I condemn that, I know I’ve been guilty too.

If we accept calls and emails regardless of what else we may be doing at the time, technology is using us rather than vice versa.  We limit our enjoyment of our downtime by making ourselves too available.

The answer, of course, is to make a conscious decision on when to make ourselves available to clients and colleagues.  Perhaps your rule will be that you must accept work-related interruptions during normal working hours but not in the evenings or on the weekends.  Maybe you’ll screen your calls and emails, only responding to those that truly need an immediate response.  Maybe you will review emails but will not accept phone calls.  Whatever your decision is, communicate it to your colleagues and, where appropriate, your clients so that people know when you’re unavailable.

Passing up good for great

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There’s a key skill for balancing work and life, and it’s one that doesn’t come naturally to many of us.  Cheryl Richardson, author of Take Time For Your Life and Stand Up For Your Life (among others) calls it “passing up good for great.”

As children, we’re taught the old saw that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.  While that’s a valid saying under some circumstances — when we have something that’s perfectly good but are tempted to get greedy and to try for more — it can also be a limiting belief that actually does us harm.  Sometimes, we need to release the bird already in hand so that both hands are free to grab the two in the bush.

It is difficult to hold onto mediocre while reaching for greatness.  So, for instance, if you’re applying for new jobs and you get one offer that’s ok but not great and a response from the other potential employer saying that you’re a terrific applicant, you’re on the very shortlist, but they haven’t yet decided… You cannot accept job #1 and have any expectation of later accepting job #2.  By the same token, if you’ve been saving for a vacation, you can’t spend your vacation fund to go away for a weekend and still expect to go to Europe as originally planned.  Another saying fits: you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Right.  What on earth does this mean for work/life balance in practice?

Work/life balance requires surrender of part of one area — whether it’s time spent on work or time spent on personal matters — in favor of the other.  You may choose to work less and play more, or vice versa.  You may decide to arrange your children’s school, activities, and transportation so you can be at work between 7 AM and 7 PM.  You may decide to forego a vacation this year so you can be on a prestigious trial team.  The catch is that whatever decision you make will require you to give up something so you can have something else.

We humans don’t generally like giving up anything we want.  We want it all, and we want it all now.  Maturity requires us to recognize that perhaps we can have it all (though that too is open to question), but we certainly can’t have it all at the same time.  The single most useful skill for deciding how to arrange this work/life balance is the ability to pass up good for great.  Learning that skill requires that we be able to recognize what’s good and what’s great, to identify appropriate time frames to help with the good/great evaluation, and to guard our decisions zealously.

Recognize what’s good versus what’s great.

This judgment will be different for each person.  I might decide that being able to attend my child’s soccer games regularly is good but having a prestigious position that will pay enough to let me easily pay for their private school is great.  I might decide that having a $200K income that requires 70-hour workweeks is good, but having time to volunteer 20 hours a week in my community is great.  Each good/great decision informs a life decision, because if I accept good and forego great, I will be unhappy.

When you look at a decision — be it the big ones I’ve mentioned or small ones like whether to go out for dinner or to stay in and relax — you can recognize what’s great by the internal voice that says yes!  When you consider an option and get an “eh, that’s fine” gut response, that’s your sign that you haven’t yet found great.  Good versus great is more than a pro/con list; it requires you to engage your values, your priorities, and your desires.

Decide what standards will guide you.  These standards must honor your values and ensure your integrity.  Although these standards are intimately related to your values, they’re more like facilitating principles.  For instance, if one of your top values is family, you might have a standard that says that you will not accept any work situation that intrudes on your Sundays.

Identify appropriate time frames when evaluating good versus great.

Sometimes what’s good versus what’s great will depend on duration.  For instance, you may decide that the opportunity to chair a bar section for a year is great even though it requires you to cut back on business development activities and to stop singing with your church choir.  If your commitment to the bar would be three years, you might decide that it isn’t a great opportunity.

When considering opportunities that are not time-limited by their own terms, good decision-making may require you to put some time limits on them.  For instance, you may decide that you’ll accept a demanding position for a year but no longer or that you’ll try a new networking group for 6 months and then reevaluate.  The key is to determine the length of time that an option is great, or at what point it may slide back to just being good.

Zealously guard your decisions.

Once you’ve identified good versus great, and especially once you’ve begun to act in conformity with that decision, do whatever you must to put boundaries around your decision.  You will have an opportunity to revisit your decision; while reevaluation is often worthwhile, be sure not to fall into the trap of accepting good when you’ve identified great.

When you decide to pass up good for great, you accept quality over quantity; you develop a high degree of selectivity about what you allow into your life and how you choose to spend your time and energy; and you refuse to settle for less than what’s best for you.  It takes practice to give up something that’s good, especially when great isn’t immediately in front of you.  Practice with small decisions (if you’re tired, is good vegging out in front of the TV, or is it getting extra sleep?) so that you’re well-trained when the big ones present themselves.  Spend some time deciding on what your guiding principles are.  Finally, think about other areas of your life or your practice where you might pass up good for great.  If this skill seems conpletely foreign to you, consider requesting support, whether it’s from colleagues or from a coach.  Difficult though it is, the skill will serve you well.

6 Tips to turn your commute into valuable time

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Very few people have truly short commutes these days.  I know of only one woman who lives within 15 minutes of her office, regardless of the time of day she makes the trip — and that’s because she’s only a 15-minute walk away.  The rest of us put up with anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours a day in commuting, time that often feels wasted.  A few years ago, I lost my 20-minute one-way commute when I moved to a lovely house that was at least 45 minutes from the office.  If I traveled during busy traffic times (not even rush hour, just busy) the drive time swelled to a minimum of an hour and twenty minutes and often longer.  I was not happy.

Most of us hop in the car, listen to the radio or a CD, grind our teeth (or worse) as we try to cope with traffic, and essentially move through the commute time mindlessly.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.

I’ve learned some ways to use that travel time to my benefit, either personally or professionally.  I’m sharing these tips now, in recognition of the increased traffic that tends to accompany the start of the school year.  These tips assume that you’re driving; you have many more options if you’re able to take mass transit or to carpool, which most lawyers can’t, just because of the uncertainty of working hours.

1.  Podcasts.  There are tons of terrific podcasts that will enrich your life, both professionally and personally.  On the professional side, check out David Maister’s work, which you can find here.  These podcasts are organized by topic (the latest being on business strategy), and each is an incisive, immensely practical, and even entertaining take on topics of importance to professionals.  The Wall Street Journal offers a variety of podcasts that will get you up to speed on news, financial issues, and some lifestyle trends.  And NPR always has something new and interesting.

To find podcasts that interest you, visit Podcast Alley or the iTunes Podcast page.  You can find podcasts about current events, religion, history, entertainment, spirituality…. You name it.  Sample some and see what piques your interest.  It’s amazing what you can learn that will be helpful immediately in your professional life, what you can contribute to your next cocktail party conversation, and what might inspire you.

2.  Books on CD.  If you don’t have time to catch up on the latest best-sellers, this might be the answer.  Audio books are available at most libraries or you can buy them.  My favorite solution is Simply Audiobooks, which is a Netflix-style rental-by-mail service.  (And, of course, Simply Audiobooks has a podcast with book reviews, too.)

3.  Thinking time: Plan (or review) your day, practice for an argument, mull over potential case strategies, etc.  It’s often difficult to get time to stare out the window and just think, and yet that’s one of the most valuable things we can do.  If you spend commuting time contemplating a particular legal point — what are the downfalls of the argument you’re considering, and what’s the risk/benefit analysis? — you will often find that the time is profitable.  Even if it’s just mentally organizing yourself for your day or your evening, thinking time in the car will allow you to make better use of your time in the office or at home.  Keep your cell phone handy (hands-free, please) so you can leave yourself a voicemail with your brilliant conclusions, or invest in a micro-cassette or digital recorder if you have an assistant who can transcribe your thoughts for future reference.  Commuting time is also a good opportunity to reflect on your goals, whether what you’re doing is moving you closer to attaining them, etc.

4.  Learn something.  If you’re a lifelong learner, this tip might be for you.  Invest in CDs of lectures on history, philosophy, business, science… Whatever tickles your fancy.

5.  Relaxation time.  Ok, traffic isn’t relaxing.  But if you surround yourself with music you enjoy, make sure you have hot coffee or cold water, optimize your car seat for comfort, and — most importantly — optimize your attitude, it can be somewhat relaxing.  Decide not to worry about getting ahead through traffic since more often than not, arriving at your destination five minutes later than you’d hoped won’t change the course of your day.  (If it does, choose to decrease your stress level and leave earlier.)  Drive mindfully, noticing the sights you pass, the colors of the sky, what people in cars around you are doing.

6.  Vent.  Especially when you’re driving home, take time during your commute to rehash the day’s events and to vent any frustration you may be carrying.  Don’t bring the toxicity into your home; instead, take your private time in the car to say whatever you’d like to whomever you’d like without any negative consequences.  Just don’t be surprised when folks in other cars look your way and giggle… And don’t get so wrapped up in your venting that you succumb to road rage.

7.  Think about whether you should move closer to work.  As you drive mindfully, notice the neighborhoods you pass.  Perhaps one of them should be home for you.  According to Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, every 10 minutes you add to your commute causes a 10% decrease in the amount of time you devote to your family and your community.  There’s a psychic toll as well as a financial toll.

Each of these tips will help to minimize the commuting burden and to maximize the pleasure and efficiency you experience at work and at play.  The key is in making conscious decisions on how to use your time.�