Most industrialized nations have more generous maternity provisions than the United States does. Consequently, many mothers (and fathers) in the States face a bigger struggle in balancing work and family than in other nations. But could the U.S.’s lack of policy mandating paid maternity leave actually help women’s careers? [Edit: I do not think the study's findings should be held up as proof that the U.S.'s lack of maternity leave is a good thing or as justification for the status quo. However, I find it an interesting study and an additional source for debate in this important issue.]
That’s the theory of a study featured in Britain’s Sunday Times – the study suggests that lengthy maternity leave encourages women to stay in the workforce, but hinders them from reaching top managerial positions.
Magnus Henrekson, one of the authors of the study, said:
When you have high levels of maternity leave, it pays for women to be in the labour market but not aim at a high-flying career. They are derailed from their objectives. The more generous you are, the fewer women you are likely to see at the very top.
According to the study, American women holds the highest percentage of “managerial position” jobs at 42.7%, followed by Australia, another country without paid maternity leave, at 37.1%. British women hold more than 33% of managerial positions. In Sweden, 31.6% of managers are female.
The study explains the reason behind the findings:
…women in Anglo-Saxon countries where maternal leave is less generous climb higher up the career ladder than in Scandinavian nations where years of female-friendly legislation may have inadvertently disadvantaged women.
I find this study fascinating.
If employers were rational actors, and if they perceive that hiring women is riskier because women might go on maternity leave then quit their jobs, then employers would be averse to hiring women, especially for top-level jobs. This would be neither legal nor admirable, but I imagine that it happens. [Charles Wheelan covers the maternity-leave-employer-discrimination topic in his book, Naked Economics: Undressing The Dismal Science].
However, it is wrong to not make reasonable accommodations for mothers, considering the physical trials they go through in bearing children. MaybeMBA writes an exceptional blog peppered with insights on business, elite business schools, and motherhood. She is recent graduate of Chicago Booth, one the top business schools in the world. She is also the mother of a baby and a toddler.
MaybeMBA wrote in a recent post [please read. It is so good],
It is a man’s world. I say this without ill will – it has historically made sense to be so. But making it a human being’s world requires more than just adding women to the mix and expecting men and childless women to understand the practical reality of birthing and bearing babies. …the only important difference between men and women is babies. All the other alleged differences are trivial. The baby factor affects all women, even if they never have children, as it weeds women out of the public realm. Accommodating women and their wayward uteruses (uteri?) is not about entering a new touchy feely world or lowering the bar, it’s about finding clever ways to overcome the inescapable physical burden of motherhood.
On a sociological tangent that I won’t get into – I find it interesting that fatherhood has much lighter impact on a man’s career [I would argue that based on outside perception, fatherhood does not harm a man's career, and may even enhance it].
I’ve read that biggest disparity in pay is not so much between men and women, per se. It is not between parents and non-parents. It is not between childfree men and fathers. It is a disparity that exists between childfree women and mothers.
However, because a majority of women are mothers and almost all young to middle-aged women can become mothers, policies and attitudes towards working mothers and motherhood can most definitely impact attitudes towards all working women.
You May Also Want To Read :
Today New York Times published a very well-written and compelling story (The Women's Crusade), p ...
Today, 89 years ago, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became law, and ...
This is a 1998 article from FORTUNE, about the 34 women of Harvard Business School's Class of 19 ...
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
You might be interested in this study about lawyers – http://allegedlyllb.tumblr.com/post/30119666/babi...
It found that childless women billed more hours than anyone else, followed, interestingly enough, by men with children.
One thing I've been urged to consider is that Europe has a terrible birth rate and has instituted more pro-natal policies to encourage child bearing. Don't know if that's accurate but it makes sense….
I am against the ideology that suggests that the private sector should be held accountable for balancing out SOCIOLOGICAL discrepancies. I really do feel that the onus falls on the government or any other public institution with a broad enough reach to tap into the masses to encourage a change in the pre-existing notions that are held by a society. The way that women are raised, the ideas that we infuse into our young girls about their priorities, and what ultimately defines a woman is not her career but rather her family. On the other hand, a man is raised to provide for his family in a purely financial sense. Women have to deal with that trade off in their career, physically first and then, intellectually (again, tapping into what is expected of her).
I propose encouraging ideologies that center around the family. This definitely stems from my cultural upbringing, but I believe that if we have work and life practices that incorporate rather than accommodate the family, the discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots so-to-speak, will be mitigated.
And that's just Chapter 1 of my novel…Ha!
"we have work and life practices that incorporate rather than accommodate the family" – That is a great phrase – I'd be very interested in learning more on what practices that incorporates rather than accommodates would look like. At the very least, "incorporates" sounds much more welcoming than simply "accomodates."
I absolutely believe that men in the workplace with children actually benefit from fatherhood, because they're seen as their families' breadwinners — and thus, get more raises/promotions. But motherhood makes you a liability, because employers know you'll likely need a more flexible schedule. No offense to the fathers out there who do just as much, but the moms are usually the ones running the kids around to school, appointments and extracurriculars. It's almost a punishment for moms in the workplace.
I think its a simplistic analysis to say that NOT giving people adequate time/compensation/job security to birth and care for their babies is HELPFUL to their careers. It may, on a population level, appear that way, but that seems a huge analytic leap based on the data presented. Correlation does not equal causation. I think it's dangerous to assume that this is a direct relationship-there are probably hundreds of mediators to this relationship. Just consider the converse-if women aren't encouraged to stay in the workforce because they have no support to do so when they have kids, no one will reach any level of success. I am just shaking my head at this twist on the research in both the article and this blog. Read The Mismeasure of Woman by Carol Tavris-it shows how research was skewed to demonstrate that daycare was bad for kids when there was political will for women to stay home, and then skewed to prove that it was good for kids when they wanted women to work while the men were off at war, and then once again, daycare was bad once the men wanted their jobs back.
I definitely do not think that withholding maternity leave is the correct national policy or that it is even helpful towards all women, because so many women are, indeed, mothers.
This study was interesting to me because I've heard about all the strides that women have made in European countries, and it's surprising to me that perhaps a policy of nationally mandated maternity have other consequences as well. I am NOT presenting this research as justification that the U.S. shouldn't offer maternity leave (or paternity leave, for that matter). After all, this research study presents ONE facet of the debate, and I don't think anyone thinks it should be the be-all and end-all on this topic.
"If women aren't encouraged to stay in the workforce because they have no support to do so when they have kids, no one will reach any level of success." <– 100% agree. In cases such as these, many women will either choose not to have kids (many women in Japan, for example), and that's not ideal either.
I will check out The Mismeasure of the Woman – it sounds like a fascinating read. Thank you for your comment.
Oh, and if you see the excerpt I took from MaybeMBA's blog post – I definitely agree with her that "accommodating women…is about finding clever ways to overcome the inescapable physical burden of motherhood." This applies in both the academic setting and the professional setting. Doing so requires action on institutional level – whether it be the instutition of law (discrimination laws / maternity leave), the institution of the firm (access to breast-feeding room, etc.) and institution of the school. But ultimately the hope is to change people's way of thinking.
Well-heeled, fascinating article and revelations indeed! "Less generous maternity leaves" produce more female high-fliers, and the discrepancy is between mothers and child-free women. Makes sense, and should be a cause to let guys off the hook yeah?
I'll have to highlight this post in my Katana wrap as it relates to my post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Will be writing more about children, marriage, and other stuff, so stay tuned!
Best,
Sam