The mother of all problems
What can HR do about 'pregnantism'?When star copywriter Peggy Olson interviews for a job with a rival advertising firm in the hit US TV series Mad Men, she’s told in no uncertain terms that the partners will “want to know if you’re married and expecting to have children”.
It’s no surprise that back in the 60s (when the show is set) having a uterus – never mind having children – was widely perceived to be a barrier to career progression on both sides of the Atlantic. Fifty years on, the fedoras and office chain-smoking may have been relegated to history, but how much has really changed for working mothers and/or women of ‘a certain age’?
According to a new study, the answer is less than many employers might care to admit. Leading employment law firm Slater & Gordon reported last month that three-quarters of 2,000 working mothers said their boss had become less interested in their career since they had had children.
Sixty per cent felt their career options were curtailed as soon as they announced their pregnancy, while following maternity leave 27 per cent felt they were given fewer opportunities, 18 per cent were offered less senior roles and eight per cent were demoted.
Meanwhile, in a survey of 500 employers by the law firm, around 40 per cent said they were wary of hiring women of childbearing age, while a similar number admitted they were reluctant to hire women who already had children or to hire a mother for a senior role.
While equal opportunities legislation has ensured that workplace discrimination relating to pregnancy and maternity is less overt than it used to be – it’s surely only a hiring manager with an indictment-wish that would adopt the Mad Men line of questioning – this research sends a clear message that the issue isn’t going away without a fight.
And with the results of a £1m Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) investigation into pregnancy discrimination due in 2015, there’s only going to be more pressure on employers to raise their game.
So why is ‘pregnantism’ in the workplace still hanging around? And what should HR be doing to help banish it once and for all?
Antediluvian attitudes
Kathryn Nawrockyi is director of Opportunity Now, the gender equality campaign from non-profit organisation Business in the Community.
According to Nawrockyi, some of the worst discrimination involves employers drawing their own conclusions about what women in this age range want from their lives and careers: “Women of childbearing age are often overlooked for promotion,” she says. “It is assumed that they will inevitably leave the workplace for a period of time.”
When it comes to women that already have children, the prejudices are even more deeply rooted. “Society still expects women to take a lead role in caring, and employers expect that too,” says Nawrockyi. “Employers make an assumption that working mothers lack ambition, ability and commitment, without having that conversation with the individual in question.”
Donald MacKinnon, director of legal services at employment law specialists Law at Work, which advises employers on issues relating to employment law, HR and health and safety, admits that outdated ideas about women’s roles can be a problem. “You still come across some antediluvian attitudes with some employers, for whom having a baby is the ultimate sign of a lack of commitment to work,” he says.
But more common, adds MacKinnon, is a fear – particularly among small employers – of requests from mothers for flexible working and what that might mean for their business. “It can frighten a lot of employers. So quite often the default position they take is that role can’t possibly be part time.”
Nawrockyi agrees that flexible working seems to be the biggest fault line between employers and mothers at the moment. “We hear lots about indirect discrimination, where the major barriers cited by women returners include the lack of access to flexible working. Or when flexible working is available, there is a negative perception of flexible workers. A culture of ‘presenteeism’ can undermine the ability for the flexible worker to flourish.”
Cultural change
According to Nawrockyi, most discrimination against pregnant women and mothers boils down to unconscious bias, making training on the subject critical for line managers.
A particularly common fallacy, she says, is that mothers are less committed. “Employers should remember this country has some of the highest childcare costs in Europe, which means that many mothers are actually working for love of the job.”
Instead of making assumptions about employees, “line managers should hold regular conversations with them, regardless of their gender or whether they’re a parent or carer, to understand their individual priorities and aspirations.”
For organisational culture to change, however, there needs to be buy-in from the top – and if the owner/CEO of your company leans towards the Mad Men end of the spectrum, where does that leave HR?
“There’s very little use in HR standing there and lecturing the board about doing the right thing – that never, ever works,” says MacKinnon. “You generally have to appeal to the bottom line.
“HR’s role is to make the positive business case. Generally, that case is about staff retention. Replacing people is expensive, so if you’ve got someone who is good at their job, it makes sense to keep them. And offering flexibility can engender loyalty, too.”
Hanging on to top talent is a factor likely to hold sway with senior management, says Nawrockyi. “The lack of skilled talent is on employers’ minds across all sectors as they look to their long-term sustainability. They are struggling to recruit and retain talent, yet because their maternity return processes and approach to flexible working are alienating, they risk losing the very talent they’ve already invested in.”
Flexible friends
Perhaps the recent changes to flexible working legislation – which gives all employees the right to request flexible working arrangements, including part-time, compressed weeks, job shares and working from home – will go some way towards combating the culture of presenteeism that often undermines mothers in the workplace.
“The potential for the right to request flexible working is that it will contribute to the breakdown of workplace stigma around mothers who work flexibly,” says Nawrockyi.
There are similar hopes that the new law on shared parental leave – which from April 2015 will allow mothers and fathers (or other co-parents) to split up to 12 months of leave between them as they see fit – will also change attitudes.
But while he applauds the principle, MacKinnon is not convinced of how much take-up there is likely to be among fathers.
“A couple of years ago, the government introduced additional paternity leave, where the mother has to take the first 26 weeks, but her partner can take the latter 26 weeks. However, only 2-3 per cent of fathers have chosen to take that up. There’s a fear, particularly for men, that if they take 26 weeks off their boss is going to see that as a lack of commitment.”
“Shared parental leave is a great piece of legislation, yet as with flexible working, employers will need support and advice in delivering it. It will also need many examples of men at middle and senior levels that have taken it up, and not suffered a career penalty as a result,” says Nawrockyi.
Ultimately, believes MacKinnon, the key is to convince employers of the benefits of accommodating the needs of mothers, as well as flexible working in general. “Accommodation helps you to retain staff,” he says. “You’ve invested a lot of money in these people and you don’t want them to walk away.
“And unless you’re going to have a policy of not employing any females between the ages of 20 and 50, then people are going to get pregnant.”
About the author
