Why Women May Not Advance – Even Without Sexism

The Wall Street Journal’s “The Juggle” blog recently reported that benefits like paid maternity leave, comprehensive healthcare, tuition reimbursement and flex-time are on the decline according to a study by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).  I’m not surprised.  We’re in a recession, more companies are hiring part-time and contract workers versus full-time employees, and the salaried workers who are being hired are valued less than they have been in the past.  There are a lot more of them out there.

But most interesting to me is how the SHRM study squares with our new predominantly female workforce.  What it suggests is that, while there may be more women working, they are not likely to have the same opportunities for advancement as their predecessors — male or female.  In the case of support for graduate education, for instance, it’s clear that today’s workers will pay higher tuition from their own pockets, leaving many marginalized from higher learning.

Even in the case of paid maternity leave and healthcare, the cutbacks affect women’s ability to reach for top jobs.  Without health benefits families are subject to financial hardship that tethers the primary or co-breadwinners to jobs they dislike, and that may have poor growth opportunity. The security of health and family benefits are likely to keep many women in jobs they would otherwise leave.

Ironically, the decrease in flextime benefits may reflect corporate response to a greater number of women in the workforce.   I suspect that companies are pre-emptively cutting back on a benefit they assume more and more women will be interested in using.  Flextime is one of those benefits that looks great on paper, but can cause chaos if everyone actually opts in — not because flextime is inherently less efficient, but because coordinating flexible scheduling for maximum efficiency takes a little creativity and work.  And to the extent that managers and human resources professionals can think creatively enough about management to create effective flextime, nobody wants to invest in implementing those plans.

All of this is by way of saying that with so many benefits being phased out, it seems unlikely to me that women will be “on the rise” in the same ways that men have been in the past.  Even without bringing in issues of sexism or child rearing, women are disadvantaged today simply because there is less employee development and support from the corporate sector.  And in general, the government has not stepped in to fill the gap.

When we think about our fathers who got advanced degrees or worked their way up corporate ladders in the 1960s through the 1980s, I can’t imagine women today doing the same today with so many fewer resources.  Especially given that many are saddled with the financial burden of childcare.

This is why women’s achievement is so much more complicated than people like Hanna Rosin at The Atlantic would have you believe. Working mothers who are climbing the corporate ladder today won’t be walking in the steps of our mothers or fathers — we will have to forge an entirely new kind of career model with much less support.  It won’t be easy.

Related links:

• Babble’s Strollerderby blog responds to the SHRM report by asking “What Happened to Flextime?”
• TIME Magazine asks “Why Are Workers Happy With Fewer Benefits and Longer Hours?”
• The Wall Street Journal reports in a separate article from a few months ago that “Even With a Recovery, Job Perks May Not Return.”