Last week business news widely reported that a Vice President at Goldman Sachs was suing the firm for “mommy-tracking.” The same firm that is handling her case is also suing Citigroup on behalf of an associate in the asset finance division who claims she was demoted following maternity leave. Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney have settled similar suits without admitting any wrongdoing.
Interestingly, Goldman Sachs, Citi and Morgan Stanley are also all part of the Working Mother Magazine Best 100 Companies list. How to square this paradox?
Charlotte Hanna claims that Goldman provided an off-ramp — allowing her to work three days a week after the birth of her first child — but failed to provide an appropriate on-ramp back to full-time employment. While she worked part-time Hanna was effectively demoted from her VP job, and ultimately was terminated during a maternity leave with her second child a few years later.
But the hard truth is that if you are a Vice President at a major financial services firm and head of your department, it’s not realistic to expect to work three days a week and retain your position. The fact that Goldman offers the opportunity to scale back is in itself a very flexible and family-friendly policy. It’s too much to expect that they preserve the exact same jobs for people who go part-time. And I don’t think companies have an obligation to provide on-ramping opportunities; if employees want to scale back up they have to do it with the understanding that they have accrued less time on the job than others who stay in the game full-time.
At the same time, I suspect that Goldman executives weren’t entirely honest with themselves or their employees about the reality of on-ramping and off-ramping. The Working Mother profile claims that, “taking a few years off to raise a child is no impediment to success at [Goldman Sachs], which makes it easy for stay-at-home moms to reenter the workforce.” That’s good PR, but it’s also utterly ridiculous. In any industry taking a few years off is an impediment — you lose income, years of experience, and networking opportunities. It may well be a sacrifice worth making, but it is a sacrifice.
What if Goldman had agreed to Charlotte Hanna’s request for part-time hours but had been crystal clear about the cost, ensuring that her expectations would be in line with the firm’s need to meet its business goals? There is an important case to be made for keeping experienced and skilled working mothers at companies, but no one should expect business to operate at a loss to do so. Why sugar coat the professional consequences of scaling back? Instead, they should have put the onus squarely on the employee to reintegrate, with the understanding that reintegration would require a full-time commitment if she wanted to return as an executive.
There is no doubt that the nature of work and corporate culture needs to change to meet the needs of families. But we need to be careful — these changes must be seen as good business, not corporate citizenship. From the press on this case, I’m not sure where the good business would have been in keeping a department head who worked only three days a week in her job. That doesn’t mean there wouldn’t have been a place for her knowledge and skills at the company; it just means that if she wanted to limit her hours that place couldn’t be in a corner office. And as someone who has chosen full-time work, that seems fair to me. What do others think?
Related links:
- More press on the case from The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, The New York Post, and Gothamist.
- Amy Hatch at ParentDish aptly points out that the comments generated by this story indicate that there is still a lot of mom-hating in corporate America.
- Discussion of the story on The New York Times‘ Motherlode blog.
- A take on the lawsuit from Edmundo Braverman at WallStreetOasis.
i scaled back to part time (80% with three normal work days plus some flex time as needed) at a high tech Fortune 50 company when I came back to work after my daughter was born. I view this as “pressing pause” on my career…. I understand that I have more limited options (many jobs at my company require you to be there 5 days a week and put in more hours than I currently am so I’m in a role that works with part time responsibilities – and my management was helpful in crafting my current role) and that there is some tradeoff on job security (otherwise my husband might have tried to negotiate something similar) because I’m showing I am less committed to my career than someone who works full time.
I may not have as good of a shot at promotions during this time period (and frankly I’m not sure I want increased work responsibilities at this stage in my life – ask me again in a few years) but I do feel like if I wanted to go back to full time I’d be able to do so… but at my current level not the level I would have been at if I’d been working full time the whole time. So I feel like I could “press play” at any time – but I haven’t hit “stop” which would cause me to potentially restart the movie and try to fastforward to where I was (which I feel like taking a few years off would do).
I think thats a legitimate thing to ask for if companies are going to offer this type of option. Mine started through a formal “new parent reintegration program” but has continued because it’s worked out well for me and hasn’t caused issues for my management. If the option was offerred but it was impossible to ever go back to full time (or management wasn’t supportive of helping employees look for opportunities) I’d question why they put the program in place in the first place. The business sense comes from not wanting to have to hire new employees to fill the gaps caused by turnover and the realization that not all jobs at a company likely need someone physically there M-F, 8-5.
i scaled back to part time (80% with three normal work days plus some flex time as needed) at a high tech Fortune 50 company when I came back to work after my daughter was born. I view this as “pressing pause” on my career…. I understand that I have more limited options (many jobs at my company require you to be there 5 days a week and put in more hours than I currently am so I’m in a role that works with part time responsibilities – and my management was helpful in crafting my current role) and that there is some tradeoff on job security (otherwise my husband might have tried to negotiate something similar) because I’m showing I am less committed to my career than someone who works full time.
I may not have as good of a shot at promotions during this time period (and frankly I’m not sure I want increased work responsibilities at this stage in my life – ask me again in a few years) but I do feel like if I wanted to go back to full time I’d be able to do so… but at my current level not the level I would have been at if I’d been working full time the whole time. So I feel like I could “press play” at any time – but I haven’t hit “stop” which would cause me to potentially restart the movie and try to fastforward to where I was (which I feel like taking a few years off would do).
I think thats a legitimate thing to ask for if companies are going to offer this type of option. Mine started through a formal “new parent reintegration program” but has continued because it’s worked out well for me and hasn’t caused issues for my management. If the option was offerred but it was impossible to ever go back to full time (or management wasn’t supportive of helping employees look for opportunities) I’d question why they put the program in place in the first place. The business sense comes from not wanting to have to hire new employees to fill the gaps caused by turnover and the realization that not all jobs at a company likely need someone physically there M-F, 8-5.
Oh, and out of college I weighed two options… my current company vs Goldman Sachs. After hearing about this I’m even more grateful I chose the path I did!
I worked part time for one month after each of my (two) maternity leaves. I found that hugely helpful, particularly after my first leave. It allowed me to figure out the logistics of being a new working mom (i.e., pumping, the morning routine, etc.) a little more gradually. I wish more companies offered that option. I had to ask for it both times, but was lucky to have flexible employers who granted it.
After my first child was born, I scaled back to a 35 hour work week for a long time, and loved it. I experienced no negative impact from doing that, and was truly sad to give that up when I moved to a different job (which was a better fit in most other ways). I found that I turned down some meetings that I would normally have attended for career-maintenance reasons, but was able to be productive enough that most people did not realize I had a shorter work week.
At my current company, we have one department that has two directors- they job share and both work part time. I think this is incredibly difficult to make work, particularly in a management job, but is an interesting solution.
If a company offers a flexible option, such as part time work, they need to be upfront about what taking that option will mean. It is absolutely unfair to offer that option but then think less over the long term of people who take it. It is fair, however, to think that they may not be ready for a promotion right now or to say that certain jobs are not available to people on part time schedules. In essence, I agree with Abby on this. If you’re going to discriminate against people who take the option, then why offer the option? It seems dishonest and unfair to do that. However, I think it is fine if you are upfront and say “taking this option will mean that you can’t have an executive level job, but can reapply for such a job when one becomes available”. Really, I think the key is to be honest with your employee and not say one thing but really think and do another.
TMB,
Just had a chance to read this terrific post…this is what happens when work+life flexibility is a one-size-fits-all program implemented without any change management strategy to create underlying buy-in and understanding of the “why” and “how” across the organization. As the other comments note, it’s about a clearly articulated win-win for the organization and the individual where success is redefined by both parties.
As always, your assessment is spot on.
Best,
Cali
Pingback: Working Mom Realities at TheMamaBee
Pingback: The Media is Failing Us « The Mama Bee
Pingback: Custom-Fit Workplace Blog Carnival: Discussion on Best Practices that are a Win-Win for Employers and Employees « MomsRising Blog