For years the outcry from women in business circles was "why can’t we have it all?" Women wanted a meaningful career with no ceiling on their level of advancement (i.e. a legitimate shot at making it to the top), a family life, being there for their children and a healthy social life. They were simply asking for the same type of life that men had.
In my career I’ve never had a conversation with a woman who felt she was being unfairly held back simply because she was a woman. My understanding of the situation was from hearing about third party experiences, or reading about anecdotal evidence of discrimination against women. So why am I writing about this topic? Dialogue is always good. I understand women haven’t always been treated fairly in the corporate workplace. We have decades of unfairness to undo. Having said that, I can honestly say that while hiring many people in my career, and having placed many people on Boards of Directors, I always remained agnostic to gender; I was always looking for the best candidate for the job.
Examples of the type of discrimination women faced included women in their late 20s or early 30s being passed over for promotions or plum assignments because they were perceived to be in their prime child-bearing years. The thinking by male management or leadership was that they didn’t want to place meaningful responsibility into the hands of someone who shortly thereafter could be absent from the workplace for a year to a year-and-a-half on maternity leave. The companies would simply pass on great candidates because of the threat of a later absence for maternity leave. How many times did a company suffer through a substandard employee because they passed on a better woman candidate. It was deemed inappropriate or illegal to ask a woman what her family plans were. Likely because women had in fact been discriminated against if they had near-term plans to have children. Which leads to women simply not revealing their plans, and so when women do go on maternity leave shortly after starting a job the employer feels burned as they now have to find a replacement. So what was the answer here? How about a simple honest conversation between the woman candidate and the employer; the woman candidate is informed she's the best person for the job; the company wants to know what her family plans are so they can prepare for her future maternity leave absence. At the same time the woman candidate is informed that if she does go on maternity leave she’ll have her same job or something similar, at the same pay, upon her return. Since this treatment upon returning from maternity leave is in fact the law, there should be no issues on either side.
Now let’s assume the woman candidate and the employer can come to an understanding in the beginning, and now the woman has been employed at the firm for a few years, then goes on maternity leave, and then comes back and works for a few more years. How does the woman employee view her service with the firm when assessing her chances for a promotion; and similarly how does the employer view her? Are the two sides aligned in that the assessment of her capabilities should be based on her years of service, or should it be based on total time employed at the firm, including maternity leave? This is where there could be some difference of opinion. And this is where women could question whether they can have it all because they feel like their chances for promotion may be jeopardized by their period of absence. Again, what is the answer here? Women want to be at home with their newborn children and so they should be. If women want to return to work immediately after childbirth then that’s a personal decision between them and their partner. Are employers expected to provide women who go on maternity leave with special consideration? Isn’t that punitive to the employees who don’t go on leave?
Employers can adjust a women employee’s benefits package to include a generous allowance for child care, or days of leave for child care reasons, and use some common sense flexibility given a woman’s role in raising children. I’m hearing about companies who have the resources, who are providing day care services on the company premises. If a company can afford it, this is a great way to support all the staff.
I read reports that showed that the number of women in management roles was a fraction of their male counterparts. Reports showed that the number of women in Board of Director roles was also a small fraction of those held by men. I never understood how this could be as when I was hiring for management roles or Board positions a candidate’s gender never entered my mind. If the world’s population was 51% women and there were an equal number of women rising through the ranks and possessing the type of experience that men had, then why weren't there as many good women candidates as men? The answer is that going back through the history of the corporate world, women haven’t always been given the same opportunities as men. Let’s say women started working in businesses in 1950; and let’s say women truly started receiving fair treatment in the year 2000. I could see it taking several decades to build up a population of experienced and talented women in the pool of candidates for management roles and Board positions; but why is this still a problem now, in 2024? Is misogyny still prevalent in the corporate workplace? If it is, it’s kept quiet as I’m not privy to any anti-women talk.
I believe a woman can have it all - a great corporate career, a great family life, and a great social life. I believe it can happen without any special concessions in the workplace for women, just fair and meritorious treatment. Take gender out of the equation when hiring or handing out key assignments. If the entire corporate world does this we’ll achieve the 50-50 split of women and men in the corporate workplace.
Komentarze