Hitting the "Mommy Wall"

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2003
Hitting the "Mommy Wall"
1585
Mon, 10-24-2005 - 11:19am

I am surprised that this actually comes as a surprise to women trying to re-enter the workforce after taking time off to SAH. *Anyone* taking a not-so-brief hiatus from their career should expect the same treatment IMO . . . you're not going to be able to pick up right where you left off.

BTW - "hi" everyone! I've missed it here! :)

Women raise kids, lose careers

By TENISHA MERCER
THE DETROIT NEWS

Veronica Golubovic spent more than 20 years on the runways of Paris, Italy and New York as a designer for some of the most powerful names in fashion -- Yves Saint Laurent, Donna Karan and Perry Ellis.

But it was a three-year gap on her resume -- the hiatus she took after the births of her two children -- that garnered the most attention from prospective employers four years ago when Golubovic tried to resume her career.

She hasn't forgotten one recruiter's look of discomfort when she explained she was a stay-at-home mom. Or the way a top official at a retailer dismissed her during an interview with, "Oh, so now you don't know if you want to be a stay-at-home mommy."

"I came here thinking I've done so much, but it was very difficult," said Golubovic, 45, who eventually opened a designer clothing store in Birmingham, Mich., earlier this year. "I didn't think people would be hung up on it, but it was shocking and surprising. I couldn't believe their reactions."

Thirty years after women began joining the work force in large numbers, many are hitting the "mommy wall" when they try to return to work after having children.

They find it difficult -- if not impossible -- to return to the same positions they left, according to a recent study by the Forte Foundation in New York and the Wharton Center for Leadership and Change at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

Unprepared for the obstacles they face on their return, many opt out of traditional corporate jobs and move to smaller companies. Experts dub the trend the "female brain drain" and say the exodus is coming just as businesses need talented, experienced workers to fill the gap as baby boomers prepare to retire en masse, leaving the biggest labor shortage in history in their wake.

"This is a defining issue for women," said Monica McGrath, an assistant professor at Wharton, who spearheaded the study. "Women who leave as vice presidents are not coming back as vice presidents. Now is not the time for corporations to squander billions of dollars in talent and enthusiasm at their fingertips. This is a talent pool that organizations need. We have a voice at the table, and I would hate to see us lose that."

The study found that half of working mothers who returned to work felt discouraged by their employer. Eighty-three percent ended up accepting a comparable or lower-level position, while 61 percent changed industries. About 45 percent of the women surveyed started their own businesses, and 59 percent went to work at smaller companies. The study is based on interviews with 200 women, most of them with MBA degrees.

The results add more fuel to the debate about whether and how women can blend careers and family. Even as women are graduating from law, business and medical schools at almost the same rates as men, they find their careers shifting in very different directions from their male colleagues once they have children.

"They want to spend time with their children, and it can be very time-consuming," said New York-based Cindy Swensen, who coaches executive women on how to return to work after having children. "Volunteering at the bake sale is probably not going to help you re-enter the work force."

It's a strange phenomenon for a generation of women who were raised to break down barriers while "having it all" -- even if that meant delaying or postponing plans to have children to focus on their careers.

"We hear very few stories of people just stepping back in where they left off," said Joanne Brundage, executive director of Mothers & More, a Chicago-area support group for working women who postpone their careers to have children.

"Clearly, there is a price to be paid for not staying full-time, full-force in most professions," Brundage said. "I think women who are becoming mothers now have a different set of priorities than women did 15 to 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the message may change, but the environment stays the same."

It's a message Cynthia Aks wasn't prepared for. The first female surgeon to graduate from the residency program at Oakland General Hospital in Madison Heights, Mich., in 1990, Aks battled her share of discrimination from colleagues who didn't care to work with women surgeons, she said.

But after Aks, an emergency room surgeon, decided to have a family in her late 30s, she found it tough to regain the solid career footing she had before her triplets were born nearly 13 years ago. Forced to take seven months off for pregnancy complications, her contract was not renewed, she said, because the hospital didn't know how to deal with a female surgeon with children.

Aks resumed her career as a specialty surgeon, but at a huge cost: Her salary plummeted 60 percent.

"The perception is that you cannot juggle multiple hats effectively," said Aks, 49, who now owns a medical practice in Southgate, Mich. "I believe it's challenging, but you can. You can have high aspirations, be successful, have a family and still be involved. It's not equal for women, and I don't think it ever will be."

Southfield, Mich.-based accounting firm Plante & Moran offers tailored work arrangements such as seasonal work, telecommuting and contract employment to retain working mothers. The firm offers the options to management only.

"We want to accommodate people and their schedules," said Bill Bufe, partner and human resources director at the accounting firm. "We've had people who wanted to leave, but we wouldn't let them. We made things much more flexible for them and allowed them to continue to keep their toe in the water here and do what they needed to do in their family."

CHANGING FOCUS WHAT WOMEN CAN DO

WHAT WOMEN CAN DO

Tips for preparing to return to work:

Create a "re-entry" plan with specific goals

Foster a network for support while away from the work force

Volunteer while away and make sure that experience can be framed in business terms when you want to go back to work

Stay connected to colleagues

Maintain professional licenses and memberships and attend continuing education courses

Take classes to refresh knowledge and skills

Stay informed about the business implications of global and economic changes in your field

Secure contract work while away

Be realistic about how long it will take to re-enter the work force

Sources: Wharton Center for Leadership and Change, the Forte Foundation

CHANGING FOCUS

A survey of women returning to work after raising families found many shifted professional roles:

Accepted comparable or lower-level job: 83 percent

Changed industries: 61 percent

Changed functional role: 54 percent

Became self-employed: 45 percent

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 11-04-2005 - 5:46pm

Pumpkin:

BTW, until you are prepared to answer the questions that have been posed to you, this discussion is basically dead.

But I'll be happy to check in on Monday (just in case you change your mind about answering those questions). Have a good weekend :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
Fri, 11-04-2005 - 6:35pm

I have to ask you not to use sex in your questions.

Mondo

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2003
Fri, 11-04-2005 - 10:00pm

I'm throwing myself into this debate late - but after having - yes - read all 800+ posts.

As a WOHM, a VERY ambitious career person, and - in fact - a person with long term standing to hire and fire, I'll say straight out that yes, SAHMs returning to work WOULD be seen by me as being less valuable a commodity to hire 'out of the chute' than other candidates, male or female, parents or not. A gap in the resume means you are OUT OF PRACTICE. In whatever field you specialize in. Unless you are literally an automaton, the nuances of the field (be it office politics, emerging new technologies, new techniques in treatment, new research developments, or the freakin' new shades of lip gloss that are in) are the intangibles that discriminate between basic employees (the utility players as we call them in my office) and the stars. The stars get first choice on assignment, flexibility, and opportunities for advancement. The stars can also say "I have to take off for my son's school play' and I have no issue with it, because they have earned that right. ***Maybe*** a star - already established in their company - can step down for a temporary stint at pt work and maintain star status - but no one coming in as an unknown can expect to attain that status as a PT employee OR as a 'my first job back' after Staying at Home. Sure - you put in 3-5 years of major star work, and you're no longer a returning SAH --- your resume gaps are now old and it's the recent stuff that counts.

In all these 800+ posts, maybe I don't agree with the *wording* of everything PNJ said, but her point is still very salient to me. It is unrealistic for someone to expect to step 'back in' where they left off, be it career progression, compensation, or degree of 'star quality'. And, yes, as a hiring manger and as an ambitious employee, I would resent the implication that - when comparing apples to apples - a returning to work from SAH employee is 'equal' to me, who maintained FT work at the same company. Sure - there are going to be men or women returning to work who have the star potential and, even in the first few months, will out perform the lower half of utility players. But I am doing star work now, and have a proven track record of it.

>>>Until women start supporting other women and their choices, and stop competing with each other, I agree with you that women will have a hard time getting ahead in the workplace. But I think there's hope. Neither of the two women in this thread who have the most prejudices against sahms returning to the workplace are actually in a position to hire and fire.<<<<<

Oh - and I am all for women supporting women. But somewhere along the way we've allowed the real original intent of sufferage and feminism to be 'politcally corrected' to be about choice. True feminists (back when it counted - when they could be jailed for what they did and threatened with violence regularly) were not fighting for choices so much as for access. Access to opportunities to vote, to learn, to earn money, to hold property, to manage their own destinies. Sure, now we have that access, and we've developed the freedom to choose which ones we want to pursue, but I have no inherent responsibility in the workplace to support other women's choices as something paramount above business.

As a human and a woman and a member of a culture based on personal freedom, I would fight anyone who tried to take choices away, be it saying all moms should SAH or all moms should WOH. But, at work, it's business baby. A candidate chose to SAH - more power to her. As hiring manager, that means she is, at best, an unknown quantity which represents a higher risk in hiring versus a candidate with recent work experience. At worst, she is a potential liability - I only have x amount of money to cover my tasks. It costs way more in time and money to fire someone (or even coach them into better performance) than it does to hire the right hoice the first time. I am not a temp agency, so I am hiring for the long haul of a career, not the duration of the latest project. My priorities will always be:

1 - Person who is known to me personally or reputation and already known to be a 'star'
2 - Person coming with personal recommendation of a trusted colleague with same credentials
3 - Person with significant current work experience in the necessary areas combined with an incredibly polished 'presence' in their interviews
4 - Recent graduate with the latest training who has an incredibly polished 'presence' in their interviews

A distant, distant 5th and 6th would be currently working people who are middle of the road - no real 'high risk, high visibility' assignments, etc. and people who have been out of the workforce.

So, no, I would not refuse to hire a person returning to work, but it's almost always going to be for an opening that exists after I am full up on stars. And it will come with an associated smaller starting salary. And the raises will be smaller in percentage up until she starts taking on the star challenges.

>>I know that my boss, who's always been a wohm, is very supportive of women who have made choices different from her own. That's real leadership, in my opinion<<

I am incredibly supportive of both men and women in my employ to make all kind of personal choices. I personally have helped craft creative maternity leave/flex time/part time plans for women employees. I've advocated to my male employees to take FMLA and offered to help them do work at home if necessary to offset the loss of income that represents. I have part timers, flex timers, and full timers in my employ, of both genders. Support does not equate to poor business choices though. My part timers get fewer opportunities - be it true management promotions or merely the plum assignments. Why - well, duh - they are there less. Out of sight, out of mind combined with not knowing whether they will clock out in mid crisis. Oh, and it's distinctly a *disadvantage* for me to have my part timers put in extra hours - by law I have to pay them overtime, which eats into my budget, so even if they are ambitious and willing to put in the effort, why would I allow it (assuming other full time salaried people are available).

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2003
Fri, 11-04-2005 - 10:09pm

>>>Would you hire someone fired from a job? Could you overlook a firing and 5-week gap in employment as well as the biding of time working for a temp agency until a f-time opportunity presents itself?

Fired --- as in for cause? Nope - probably not. ANd, rather brutally, there was a time where I wouldn't hire anyone who was laid off either, since the lifeboat drill is usually in play there too. Nowdays, given the slash and burn tactics of many major businesses, being laid off is less of a stigma.

But, again, all things being equal, candidates with similar assignments and backgrounds, one having been laid off and one without gaps, both having been strong interviews --- I hire the one without gaps.

>>>Which is the worse gap on a resume - a firing of a wohm who otherwise never ceases to work or years that a sahm *chooses* to be unemployed before returning to full-time employment?<<

Assuming the firing was for cause --- the wohm who was fired is the worse candidate and would likely not even get an interview.

However, unless I was desperate, I would keep looking for other candidates who had uninterrupted work backgrounds before I would extend an offer to the returning to work SAHM.

Let me re-emphasize that this is assuming this is a returning to work NOW or very recently ---in my field and most others, if your gap was 5 years ago or more, it's not really pertinent to the hiring decision any longer. However, your salary offer *will* be directly calculated basedon number of years of work experience - 5 years off to SAH is subtracted right off the top.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2003
Fri, 11-04-2005 - 10:12pm

>>she's entitled to the full-pay of someone in her position

But that doesn't mean she is entitled to equal consideration with regards to promotion, assignments of leadership, or high risk/high visibility positions.

As a manager, I am paid in part for my judgement about the right placement of a person based on tangibles and intangibles. Part of the intangibles would include my perception of an employee's level of committment to my organization and her degree of ambition, initiative, and drive.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2003
Fri, 11-04-2005 - 10:57pm

I don't know pumpkinangel at all, bu I have to enjoy from afar either your stubborn intent to pretend to be obtuse, or actual inability to concede that the same subjects have been addressed at length in this thread - not withstanding your obvious desire to word your questions in such an obviously slanted way.

all that said, I'll jump in and give my answers:

Do you think that SAHM's are equal to WOHD's/WAHD's?"

---- As all the other respondents asked, in what way (and not just rewording the term 'equal'). It is all about context. Equal to whom? Within the marriage/family arrangement, if the family has chosen a dynamic of SAHM/WOHD (or vice versa) because it fits their family, and their temperments, and their marriage structure, then yes, I expect that they are equal, and frankly it is none of my business.

If we're talking about comparing two moms - one who SAH and another who works for pay - are they equally moms? Hell yes! Are they equally contributing to their families -- well, no, but I'll assume that they are EQUIVALENTLY contributing (throwing out the extremes of either case) and that each family did the calculus of financial, emotional, and physical needs in deciding their set up. FInancially - nope - they are not equal. They may be extremely valuable to their families, but bottom line, the WOH parents represent greater financial significance to the family. As a glib example, I assume you'd find that the WOH parent typically has a much larger life insurance policy value than the SAH parent.

Do you think that mother's need to WOH/WAH in order to be considered equal to WOHD's/WAHD's?

Again, in what context? Within the family? Not unless one partner wants something very different than the other and someone is being forced into this scenario (either a mom staying at home because DH wants it or DH being forced into primary income earner since mom refuses to work...) In pure financial terms - yes.

Do you think a mother's WOH/WAH status is required in order to be considered equal to WOHD's/WAHD's?

Not quite sure how this question is substantively different than the one above...

Do you view a SAHM who is being supported by her husband as being a negative, selfish, irresponsible, unambitious, etc. option?

Once again - context. Staying at home based on mutual agreement and while providing primary care to your kids? Nope. Staying at home after the kids are in school full time? Still nope --- but that opinion changes if the SAHM is not actively engaged in the kids' school life or if the family is struggling financially. If it is starting to affect the financial footing of the family, either in acute (debt, bankruptcy, etc.) or long term (DH can't plan for retirement, have to keep borrowing from house equity, etc) --- yeah - it's starting to get irresponsible.

Would you consider someone who did hold such a stance to be prejudiced, anti-feminist, and militant?

Not at all - they may be ignorant, they may be judgemental, and in all likelihood, they are both ill-informed and stupid. But I would suspect that only a tiny fraction of people who had those thoughts are doing it based on some militant, anti-SAH platform.

As I said in an earlier post, I do not think - at it's core - feminism is about choices. I think feminism is about access. It's about conitnually expanding and holding open the opportunities that are made available to women and resisting against assumptions that women somehow are less able or less qualified to merit access based on gender. I personally feel that freedom women gained ***as a result of feminism*** to - in some case choose to SAH or WOH is all fine and good, but it ain't feminism. Feminism is assuring you have the right to self-determination. That doesn't mean that feminism equates to an equal support of all the paths a woman COULD choose.

Do you think families should have a variety of options to choose from?

Could this be a more disingenuous question?

Do you consider both WOHP's/WAHP's and SAHP's to be equally important? Especially, with regard to their respective roles/the work that they do?

Are they equally important to their families - yes? Are they equally important to society - that's harder to ascertain. Again - it's all about context. I can imagine a scenario where a SAHP is healthily nurturing children who - were she not at home - would be placed, for financial reasons, in a poor quality day caer setting and maybe a mediocre school. Maybe the kids have learning problems, etc., and a SAHP can spend more time overcoming those. In the end, if the SAHP decision results in a child that is more successful in finding employment/placement in a good way, that SAHP is more valuable to society than if the same parent had worked and the kids turned out to need special care, Government assistance, whatever. At the same time, a WOHP who provides love, trusted care, and financial support to their families, and by the way discovers a new cancer drug, writes an inspiring piece of music, or keeps airplanes from falling out of the sky by being at work is way more valuable to society than if they stayed at home.

Do you think there is something inherently wrong with a SAHM who makes use of the family's personal funds to: get her Master's degree, self publish a book, record a cd, etc?

Context, context, context.... if family finances are not troubling and core things like reduced or eliminated debt, retirement savings, and educational savings for children are addressed, then no, I don't think it is *wrong*. If it is done solely as a personal ego thing (i.e., get a master's degree for the 'sake of learning'), it does come across as dramatically self-indulgent. It's not wrong (nor is it any of my business), but if it is presented to me for my opinion, I'm not likely to have a lot of respect for it. I can't imagine not working - I love what I do and I thrive on the political and intellectual interplay of a work environment. But - accepting that others don't feel the same way - I'd still rank much higher in my respect and regard SAHMs who are volunteering at school or in the community than I would those who are pursuing some sort of flower-child-like "find myself" personal quest.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2003
Fri, 11-04-2005 - 11:03pm

Ours is a little less cut and dried --- but similar.

For sure, contractors go first.

From there, we have a lifeboat drill. Managers are expected to numerically rank all their staff every year. I'm to use the assumption that ALL my major projects have been cancelled. I have to work with staff that have the core skills and flexibility to keep whatever business we still have going to customer satisfaction and build new business. Now who gets in the boat?

Part timers drop to the bottom of the list quickly, unless you *know* they would come full time or they have a unique, highly valued skill.

The star performers that routinely work-from-home, come in on Monday with 'new ideas' they thought of over the weekend, and who have in the past went the extra mile for long hours or unpleasant assignments get in the boat.

The 'put in my 40 and do what I'm told' people do not get in the first boat --- the ones that are good with the customers will get in the second one though

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 11-05-2005 - 9:24am

<>


Both.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 11-05-2005 - 9:28am

I don't have much more to add, so here is my previous post on the matter.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sat, 11-05-2005 - 9:36am

<>


Only took how many times of asking?

PumpkinAngel

Pages