Barack Obama says work-life balance isn't real for successful people
Former President Barack Obama admits that if you want to find career success, you shouldn't expect to always have work–life balance; it's okay to 'throw yourself into work,' as long as you make up for it later, he says. After a hard-core campaign season, he set a strict rule as president to have dinner every night with Michelle and his two daughters, Sasha and Malia.
If finding success in your career is on your bucket list, you might need to get used to working lunches and staying past 5 p.m. That's, at least, according to former President Barack Obama, who recently revealed that achieving proper work–life balance will not always be possible.
'If you want to be excellent at anything—sports, music, business, politics—there's going to be times of your life when you're out of balance, where you're just working and you're single-minded,' he admitted on The Pivot Podcast.
It's a lesson he—and his family learned the hard way.
The 63-year-old admitted that when he first ran for president, he was on the constant grind for over a year and a half. While he said he would take some breaks during the weekends, his wife Michelle was largely left picking up the slack at home, taking care of the kids, even while she had a full-time job of her own.
Though the time away from his family led to two terms in the White House, Obama admitted it wasn't sustainable. As president, he set a rule where he had family dinner every night at 6:30pm—even if he had to go back to work later. And while some leaders might think it takes away valuable work time, he said the opportunity to decompress with family was actually incredibly impactful.
'They ground you and give you perspective, and over time, that makes you better,' he said.
Even as a former president, Obama admitted that his political accomplishments—what kept him away from his family—won't be what he remembers at the end of life. Instead, it'll be the love and memories he had with his children.
'I don't think there's a perfect formula,' he said at an Obama Foundation event in 2019. 'I think it starts with recognizing that on my deathbed, I am confident that I will not remember any bill I passed, I will not remember any speech I gave, any big crowds.'
That's not to say career aspirations are not important, he said, it just means the level of commitment someone can give to their work all depends on what life is like at home—and vice versa.
'There will be phases in your life where you have to prioritize different things,' Obama said. 'There are times where it will be okay for you to just throw yourself into work because everything's in a pretty good place. There are going to be times where you have to maybe make some sacrifices on the work side because things aren't all okay at home.'
For couples, the same premise applies—sometimes sacrifice will be made to aid the other to focus on their dream, but the favor has to be returned.
'In both cases, (Michelle and I) try to say, you can have it all—but you can't have it all at once,' he told The Pivot Podcast. 'You have to recognize there may be times in your life that you are going to be busy, and the other person has to put up the slack, but you have to be willing to do that for the other person as well and try to create some equity inside the family.'
Fortune has reached Obama for comment.
The debate over work-life balance isn't just top of mind for political leaders—but business leaders, too.
LinkedIn's cofounder, Reid Hoffman, has previously said that work–life balance is not much of an option for entrepreneurs who want to break through the competition.
'If I ever hear a founder talking about, 'this is how I have a balanced life'—they're not committed to winning,' Hoffman told Stanford University's 'How to Start a Startup' class in 2014. 'The only really great founders are [the one's who are] like, 'I am going to put literally everything into doing this.''
But like Obama, Hoffman had one exception to the grind: dinner with families.
'When we started LinkedIn, we started with people who had families. So we said, sure, go home have dinner with your family,' Hoffman said late last year on the Diary of a CEO podcast. 'Then, after dinner with your family, open up your laptop and get back in the shared work experience and keep working.'
For other leaders, having structured work–life balance is non negotiable. In fact, Laxman Narasimhan, the former CEO of Starbucks, previously told Fortune that he's 'very disciplined about balance.'
'It's got to be a pretty high bar to keep me away from the family.'
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
A divided Congress mulls war powers as Trump considers strike in Iran
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers in the House and Senate are divided on how and whether to act on President Donald Trump's suggestion that he may authorize a U.S. strike on Iran amid missile attacks between Iran and Israel. Congress is the only branch of government that has the power to declare war, according to the U.S. Constitution, but presidents have stretched their own powers to engage in foreign conflicts in recent decades because the president can authorize strikes in defensive cases. As Israel and Iran trade blows in an escalating aerial war, Israel is aiming to take out Iran's nuclear facilities with the possibility of the U.S. military's help. Trump said on June 18 his decision is imminent and that he wasn't concerned about upsetting parts of his core MAGA political base that are publicly warning against the United States being entangled in another foreign conflict. Trump first ran for president in 2016 as an ardent critic of the war in Iraq. Once in the White House, he ordered a drone strike on an Iranian military commander, Qassem Soleimani, without telling Congress. Former President Barack Obama argued George W. Bush-era war authorizations from the early 2000s covered drone strikes in Yemen. And former President Bill Clinton conducted missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 without explicit Congressional approval. Some lawmakers of both parties say they want a say in whether the U.S. gets involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel, which began on June 13 when Israel struck Iran. Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, and Ro Khanna, D-California, introduced a resolution to block U.S. involvement in the conflict without Congressional approval. "This is not our war," Massie wrote on X. "Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, introduced a similar measure in the Senate. Both the resolutions in the House and Senate are privileged, which means the chambers will be forced to vote on them as soon as next week, Kaine said. "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States," Kaine said in a statement. "I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict." But support for the resolutions may not fall neatly along party lines. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, has said he will vote against Kaine's push because he wants to ensure Trump can destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. And Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said the Constitution is "pretty clear" that the president can't take the country to war without Congressional approval. "You can't have a president just beginning a war on his own," Paul said. "So if that decision should be made, he should come to Congress and ask for permission." However, many Republicans in the Senate say Trump is well within his rights to move unilaterally for a single strike. "A single bombing run, historically, has not been understood to require congressional authorization," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. "To engage in sustained hostility, to engage in continued warfare, does require congressional coming to the floor.' Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told CBS News on June 15 that "the worst possible outcome" would be the survival of the Iranian nuclear program. Destroying it through diplomacy would be preferred, he said. But "if diplomacy is not successful, and we left with the option of force, I would urge President Trump to go all in to make sure that when this operation is over, there's nothing left standing in Iran regarding their nuclear program," he said. "If that means providing bombs, provide bombs... If it means flying with Israel, fly with Israel." Others are keeping their powder dry until Trump makes his plan clear. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters on June 17 that Trump is "perfectly within his right to do what he's done so far." Asked whether he would consider allowing a War Powers resolution to come to the floor to authorize force in the case it's needed, Thune said: "We're getting the cart ahead of the horse here." "Clearly if this thing were to extend for some period of time there could be a more fulsome discussion about what the role of Congress should be, and whether or not we need to take action," Thune said. "Right now, let's hope and pray for the best outcome, the best solution. In my view, that would be Iran coming to the negotiating table and agreeing to end their nuclear program." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Congress mulls war powers as Trump considers strike in Iran
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
Hollywood and Obama should be judged for covering up Joe Biden's frailty
One year ago this month, attendees packed the 7,100 seats inside the Peacock Theater in Los Angeles to watch a parade of A-list celebrities — George Clooney! Julia Roberts! Barbra Streisand! — unite in a common goal: to raise more money for President Biden's re-election campaign than had ever before been tallied for a single fundraising event. By that standard the evening was a smashing success: Over $30 million, a record, was raised. 6 George Clooney, Joe Biden, Julia Roberts and Barack Obama at the Los Angeles fundraiser last June 15th, the beginning of the end of the wide-scale cover-up of Biden's inability to maintain his presidential campaign. X/Chris Jackson 'How important the event was to his re-election bid could be seen,' the Associated Press reported, 'in Biden's decision to fly through the night across nine time zones, from the G7 summit in southern Italy to Southern California, to attend.' Advertisement Nothing was left to chance. Outside the Peacock, riot police ringed the Gaza protesters; inside, the biggest weapon was rolled out. Former President Barack Obama appeared onstage with his old No. 2, the pair of presidents interviewed by the ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Their recurring theme: A second Trump presidency would ruin America. Obama called the current moment 'a by-product of 2016,' when, he said, 'a whole bunch of folks . . . sat out . . . Hopefully, we have learned our lesson, because these elections matter.' When Roe v. Wade came up, and the audience hissed, Obama scolded them: 'Don't hiss; vote.' 6 Within weeks of the event at the Peacock Theater, Biden would bow out of the campaign, which passed onto Vice President Kamala Harris. AP Still sharp, still charming, the familiar smile still beguiling, the forty-fourth president deployed all his gifts to urge the high rollers at the Peacock — and by extension, all Americans — to support Biden with money and votes: the most precious commodities a civic-minded American can be asked to invest. Advertisement The only problem was: Biden. At the event's end, as he and Obama waved goodbye with Kimmel, the incumbent became catatonic, just as he had five days earlier, at a Juneteenth concert at the White House. His whole body froze, as if immobilized by a science-fiction ray-gun. Obama had to guide his friend, gently but firmly, off the stage. As the Washington Post later reported, the commander-in-chief, keeper of the nuclear option, appeared 'slow . . . frail.' 'Even with Kimmel posing softball questions, and Obama frequently interjecting to provide support,' the story said, 'Biden struggled to explain key parts of his campaign platform, with attendees saying that the president frequently stumbled over his remarks, trailed off or was simply confusing.' 6 Pres. Obama has staked his post-presidential legacy on moral authority, clarity and legitimacy. His role in clouding Biden's health demands that legacy be reconsidered. AP Advertisement By June 27, Biden's disastrous performance in the CNN debate with former President Trump in Atlanta had triggered an open revolt, with leading Democrats and rank-and-file primary voters clamoring for Biden to withdraw from the contest. Throughout the incumbent's long political death-spiral, former President Obama — who had urged Biden against running in 2016 and 2020, worried the older man might 'embarrass himself' — remained silent. In what the Associated Press called 'the most delicate political moment for Democrats since former President Bill Clinton's impeachment,' Obama was seen struggling 'to balance his role as a party elder and an honest broker for Democrats seeking advice while avoiding being seen as betraying his former vice president.' Missing from this depiction was a key group: the American people. In Biden's season of torment, Obama may have deemed it prudent to keep his own counsel; but that doesn't explain his presence at the Peacock Theater in the first place. Could someone as perceptive and politically astute as Obama, a bestselling memoirist and two-time winner of the Electoral College, really have failed to discern Biden's unfitness until the fundraiser? Advertisement 6 Despite being enabled by sycophantic aides — and his Vice President — Biden's deterioration was well-known among much of Washington. Getty Images And even if that were true, why did Obama wait until after the debate, almost two weeks, before taking action to protect the electorate? By July 11, 'Morning Joe' relayed the whispering of top Democrats who believed Obama was 'working behind the scenes to orchestrate' Biden's withdrawal. In short: What took him so long? Barack Obama entered office with a Gallup approval rating of 67% and, after sinking to 40% in 2011, left office with a robust 59%. Polling on former presidents is scant; but Gallup still has Obama at 59%, while a recent YouGov survey lists him at 62%. 6 Following his humiliating defeat to Ronald Reagan in 1980, Jimmy Carter went on to rehabilitate his legacy via ambitious, progressive humanitarian efforts. Getty Images What does it say for a man who, trusted by so many, colluded in a lie to them — that Joe Biden was fit for office — and moreover participated in an enormous transfer of wealth, $30 million in a single evening, to prop up that lie until it became impossible even for the most deluded souls to believe? Rather than use his enduring appeal to force the Democratic Party to do the right thing in mid-2023 — when Biden was still officially mulling whether to seek re-election — Obama held his tongue and hoped for the best. For the winner of the 2017 Profile in Courage Award, the crucible of 2024 was not a Profile in Courage moment. 6 Biden and Obama on that fateful Peacock Theater stage last June, which raised $30 million. AP Advertisement Obama's historical legacy won't rest entirely on the arc and perceptions of his presidency. His actions since 2017 matter, too; and in covering for Biden for so long, Obama displayed a contempt for our democracy, and his own party, unbefitting of a two-term president. Jimmy Carter's post-presidency helped lift his standing in history. For Barack Obama, at least so far, the narrative runs in the other direction. James Rosen is chief Washington correspondent at Newsmax and the author, most recently, of 'Scalia: Rise to Greatness, 1936-1986.'
Atlantic
13 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Only Iran Hawk Is Trump
By carrying out air-strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites last night, Donald Trump showed the fundamental error of American political ornithology: There have never been Iran hawks and Iran doves. There have been only doves. Every prior U.S. president, including Trump himself, has refrained from attacking Iranian territory, even in response to killings and attempted killings of Americans, not only abroad but also on American soil. Whether this dovish approach was wise is debatable; that it was anomalous among American policies toward hostile countries is not. Imagine if Venezuela relentlessly plotted to kill Americans, in locations around the world—and tried to acquire a weapon that would safeguard its campaign of violence for generations to come. Other countries have not been so bold as Iran, and if they had been, the response might have looked like what Iran saw last night in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. At a press conference, Trump said the nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated.' Also beyond debate are the results of that dovish policy, up to yesterday. Some of those results were positive. The United States and Iran were not at war, and American forces in the Middle East were not all at high alert for reprisals. But Iran had gone metastatic. It had, with impunity, set up armed proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, and Iraq, and less overt forces around the world. What other country does this? What other country does this without rebuke? The best argument against attacking Iran's nuclear program has always been that the attack will not work—that it would at best set the program back, rather than end it, and that Tehran would respond by building back better, in a deeper bunker and with greater stealth. An enrichment facility capable of producing a nuclear weapon need not be large, perhaps with the size and power needs of a Costco or two. The Obama-era nuclear deal secured unprecedented access for monitoring Iran's known nuclear sites. The demolition of those sites means that any future ones will be unmonitored, remaining a secret from outsiders for years, like China's was. Think of the cavernous chemistry lab built below the laundry-processing plant in Breaking Bad, but churning out uranium-235, not blue meth. If any other country is thinking about going nuclear, it will learn the lesson of last night and start with the Breaking Bad approach, or better yet scrap its plans completely. From the perspective of nonproliferation, Trump's strikes could be good news, in the obvious sense that countries that desire nuclear weapons now have more reason to think their centrifuges will be destroyed before they produce enough material for a bomb. Up to now, most countries that have persevered have eventually succeeded in going nuclear. The most notable counterexamples were Iraq, whose so-called 'nuclear mujahedin' (as Saddam Hussein later called them) had their enrichment plant at Osirak bombed by Israel in 1981; and Syria, which built a secret plutonium-producing nuclear reactor only to have it destroyed, again by Israel, in 2007. If the strikes last night worked (and it is far too early for anyone, including Trump, to say), Iran will join the small club of nations whose nuclear ambitions have been thwarted by force. 'There will be either peace,' Trump said at his press conference last night, 'or far greater tragedy for Iran.' What might peace and its alternatives look like? Trump did not say, as the Iran dove George W. Bush might have, that peace is conditional on the overthrow of Iran's theocracy. Trump has always seemed open to Iran's continued rule by any authoritarian or scumbag or religious nut who is willing to keep to himself and maybe allow the Trump family to open a hotel someday. So peace could conceivably still take many forms, some of which will disappoint Iranian democrats and secularists. The alternative to peace, which Trump promises will draw such a tragic reply, can take both immediate and longer-term forms. The immediate form is continued Iranian strikes against Israel and the expansion of those attacks to include U.S. bases in the region. (The logic of international law, for what little it is worth, would seem to permit retaliation against military targets—but not hospitals, apartment buildings, or other civilian infrastructure—of both Israel and the United States.) It would at this point be foolhardy for Iran to increase such attacks, rather than ending them or tapering them off. But no one familiar with Iran's history would expect it to limit its reply to conventional strikes, or to prefer them to the irregular forms of attack that it has practiced avidly for more than 40 years. A barrage of ballistic missiles, the regime understands, may invite a tragedy for Iran. But what about the mysterious disappearance of an American from the streets of Dubai, Bahrain, or Prague? Or the blowing up of a hostel full of Israelis in Bangkok? Or cutting the brakes of some American or Israeli diplomat's car in Baku? Small acts of harassment, such as these, force Iran's enemies to make hard choices about how to retaliate. The difficulty of those choices are part of the reason for past presidents' consistent reluctance to attack Iran. Do you attack Iran after the death of one U.S. Marine? How about two? How much proof of Iranian involvement in a diplomat's car crash will it take to trigger a renewed state of war? Iran's history suggests that under normal circumstances, it knows the level of provocation that will keep an American president from responding with direct force. Its estimations seem to have failed it for Trump (and Benjamin Netanyahu), but in the past and in the future, one can expect that it will, like a niggling spouse from hell, know the precise limits of its adversaries' patience. The point of the prolonged pressure, staying a smidge under the threshold of renewed hostility, is to drive Iran's adversaries mad, to tire them out, and to convince them to leave the region out of sheer stress and weariness. Ironically Trump's foreign policy is, or was until yesterday, proof that this strategy is effective. Trump came to power as an isolationist in trade and a bring 'em home skeptic of U.S. military action abroad. In his first term he fired John Bolton, a tireless advocate of regime change. In his second he appointed Tulsi Gabbard, high priestess of weary isolationism, as a top adviser. Trump said that he would escalate American attacks 'if peace does not come quickly.' It is possible that peace will come quickly, and Iran's government will survive in humiliated form. It is also possible, under those circumstances, that the peace that comes quickly will again be illusory, and Iran will revert to tactics short of war, so it can wait out Trump's term, and let another dove take his place. In that case, the Middle East and beyond will be a scarier place to be an American than it was a few days ago.
