Women WFH missing out on work opportunities

[AuntieJoyce]

New article on the BBC summarising an interview with nationwide boss Debbie Crosby. Apparently “Being seen and then seeing other leaders is a really important part of development” and results in more opportunities at work.

She observed that men come into the office more than women. I can honestly say this isn’t the case where I work. Wondering if this is a thing or whether it’s just her agenda to justify rolling back on their fully work from home policy. It’s not like we need any more justification for the gender pay gap is it?

Women working at home could risk missing out, says Nationwide boss www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e3y80vqp5o

I read that article and whilst I can't disagree that people who are in the office less will often miss out on professional opportunities and development simply through not being available or visible, I also thought it was hugely unhelpful of her to state this as a bald fact. How about we look at the reasons why women are in the office less?! Could it at all be because even in this day and age if there are children involved and/or caring responsibilities the default still seems to be that the little woman is going to do the majority of the pick ups and drop-offs, parents evening, hospital appointments, etc etc. Particularly disappointing that this is being stated by a woman in a senior position.

It’s interesting you say that it’s disappointing. I felt a bit like that as well. I do feel like it could only be said because she’s a female CEO. A man would have his arse handed to him.

Not just women but everybody especially those at the start of their career. WFH is great but in many jobs there is a price to pay and if you’re ok with that then good. It will become obvious in around ten years time what the good and bad effects of a massive change in working practices introduced overnight with no planning are.

Why though?

It’s pretty widely recognised, and pretending it’s not the case does no one any favours.

If you read the full article then she talks plenty about what’s needed to make participation through attendance more realistic (and yes, that means a household not treating the woman as the default primary carer).

Unsurprisingly, it’s that extract that’s made the headline as it’s provocative.

But pretending that it’s not a genuine issue is a disservice.

This from the woman who is instrumental in having outsourced their webchat team to Mumbai. She’s all about equality.

To be honest, it put me off Nationwide a bit. She sounds a bit mercenary and the kind that has pulled the ladder up behind her. There is no reason you can't do all the things she has stated when working from home, if work life is adjusted a bit, which it has.

Is there a longer article which I am missing? I've read the article linked and there isn't a single constructive suggestion in it to help women be more present in the office. There's talk about understanding challenges and needing to be flexible but not a single specific policy mentioned which could help people be in the office more or not miss out on opportunities through mostly remote working. It's also particularly difficult as the current policy seems to represent a complete change from the policy under the previous CEO. So many people have probably now made living arrangements and childcare options based on working remotely, which are difficult to unravel and we change changes are again going to disproportionately affect women.

I can confirm, in my large office men most certainly don't come into the office more than women, in fact it's the teams that are predominantly female who work from office more often - this woman is a joke

I find that a bit odd, this from someone who took on a remote part time position and in 6 months have been promoted to a full time member of the senior management team.

My directors attitude is as long as I do my job he doesnt need me in an office. Currently I am in the office more as I'm training my new team but once they are up to speed I will revert to more home working.

Ultimately it's about relationships and you can build those virtually, and performance isn't dictated by location either

It’s about relationships, and it’s about performance- but they’re not dicatated by location.

And yet you’re in the office more at the moment because you’re training a new team. If relationships and performance aren’t impacted by location then why are you in the office more?

😣

We have one day in the office a week. Nobody, male or female, offers to go in more than that. There are more female leaders than male.

I know a bit about Debbie Crosbie - she used to talk openly about how much flexibility she needed when she was a mum to a young child, and how she was supported by the organisation she worked for to have this.

I've heard this from three other senior women, who then seem very against the very flexibility they were able to benefit from.

It's shameful.

I find this really interesting actually and find it effects extroverts more than introverts.

I'm not naturally social - at all - but have high career aspirations and am in a senior role. Since the beginning of my working life, I've had to ask for networking opportunities. Set up coffee chats, instigate conversations - it doesn't come easily (but does with practise). WFH didn't make much difference - I continue to pursue the connections I want to make, just virtually.
Very extroverted colleagues complained constantly about the effect of WFH on their career - because their conversations and connections, and subsequent success, came from impromptu 'water cooler' chats instead of intentionally carving out time for relationship building.

I'm now in a company that is 95% WFH and we thrive - the culture genuinely feels very healthy in terms of career progression - but we are all pretty introverted 😂

Is she not saying that her back to the office policy is discriminatory against women? As women are much more likely to need flexibility for childcare.

I’m sure she’s right about it harming progression, but many of us are just clinging on trying to make ends meet and dont have the luxury of focussing on progression.