to wonder why I can't keep my career on track when part time?

[Igglystuffedfullofturkey]

I've gone part time on return from maternity leave. Before I had DS I was a "high flyer", got promoted quickly etc.

Since I've come back, I still feel the desire to do well but recognise that now I'm a mum, I can't put in the hours. But it doesn't mean that I can't do a good job in the time I am there, right?

I'm fed up of the culture of long hours and that it seems that you have to be seen to be there after 5 when in fact if you do the job properly you can have a decent work life balance.

It's a bit of a ramble but AIBU to think that a successful career can be maintained even if I am part time now? Or am I being naive to try and break the mould.

Don"'t give up. You can work part time and still fly high, but it does depend on your attitude (not hours) and the attitude of your work. I was acting director of our work (one of the top 3 in the country at what we do, public sector) after Dd1 on 4 days a week and although I took a side ways move after dd2 (partly due to us recruiting a permanent director) and am shortly to be head of the group I now work in after returning from dc3 and on way days a week. What has helped is that I have been with the organization 10 years and have worked closely with CEO and chairman who know what I can do, even on 9 to 5.

'way days'? Should be 3 days!

agreed darlene, agreed.

thanks mrmagnolia* you give me hope. Part of me has the attitude that it can be done but I worry it'll be in vain hence the AIBU

But you say you do a better job; your bosses say you do a better jpb; your clients are happy - why do you think you're not maintaining a successful career?

I haven't been formally appraised as a part timer. There's no reason the standard of work might slip but I'm worried I'll be treated differently.

Agree totally with Darlene - I was also appalled to read some of the mean minded and resentful attitudes on this thread.

Those of us who work part-time are fighting some old-fashioned discriminatory beliefs, but I think it is extremely important to keep fighting.

To me, the long hours culture - especially measuring who is "best" based on who stays the latest - is laughable. We really need to resist this attitude. I always say if anybody needs to work such long hours, it's because they're not efficient.

I don't have kids but I choose to work part-time because life's too short to spend HOURS at work trying to prove a stupid point.

Resist, resist, resist.

A few of the mothers of children in DS's class were discussing this the other day. I found the experiences of two of them (both had worked in the finance sector) interesting.

Woman A had pretty much identical appraisal ratings (both in absolute terms and in where she was ranked within her peer group) before taking maternity leave with her DC1. She returned part-time for a couple of years and got exactly the same appraisal ratings as before, then was made redundant while she was on maternity leave with her DC2. During the process of disclosure over the redundancy settlement, she discovered that while before she went on maternity leave the first time her top appraisal ratings had earned her a top quartile bonus every year, when she returned to work part time her bonus, even when multiplied up pro rata to what would be its full-time equivalent, was now in the bottom 10%.

Woman B worked in HR and used to be the European Head of Compensation for a large investment banking and securities firm. She said that she had to scrutinise the proposed bonuses carefully because time and time again part time workers/those returning from maternity leave were marked down in the draft bonus listings, and she'd go to their managers looking for whether there was any evidence-based reason why these women were being awarded lower bonuses. Almost always there wasn't, and the manager was either mentally rounding down the bonus on the basis that the employee was working part-time (which they had been explicitly told not to do because it would be pro-rated downwards in relation to hours worked as the next stage in the process) or that there was some general waffle about how the employee was "less committed" now (but they could never produce anything measurable to demonstrate that). There was basically just a huge perception problem with part-time workers and HR needed to be incredibly on-the-ball to try to overcome it.

I know that in my case my career is stalling because I can't travel or be as flexible as I used to be (example: I was invited to apply for a position based on work I'd done previously, so because the people involved thought I'd be good at it, but it's a "you need to drop everything and fly to Switzerland tomorrow" sort of a role and there's just no way I can do that at this point).

I don't actually feel that's particularly unfair of my employer; my management chain do genuinely try to find me interesting and challenging roles, but the nature of the work we do means that the more flexible you can be in terms of hours and locations the more interesting opportunities there are. And the more interesting roles you get experience in, the faster your career will progress. But there are plenty of other sectors where that isn't the case and there's no reason why part-time workers ought to be disadvantaged.

I think that many people on this thread are missing is that a 0.6 working hours contract attracts a 0.6 rate of pay. Therefore the OP is equal to a colleague of the same grade by taking a 0.6 client list.

i work full time but i only work 'my hours' albeit flexibly and will stay late if requied but will take the hours back.
i have to because i'm also studying part-time and volunteer so i can't just do more unpaid hours at work.

i personally believe i do better than a lot of people who do more hours. i make sure i emphasise 'efficiency' and 'working smarter, not longer' in my aims and objectives. i also point out that good project planning should eliminate most of the last minute 'crises' that others appear to generate a lot of.

i love my job, but i also love my life and i am a better worker when i am rested, exercise, study and volunteer.

Fluffles - totally agree.

I think circumstances where there is a need to drop everything and be "flexible" could probably be avoided in many cases.

The long hours culture is a total joke.

I have a friend who works in the city (female) and is totally resigned to giving up her career the moment she has children because she doesn't want to be a 'part-timer' (she even says it's annoying when people are part time because she needs things signed and has to wait ...). In her office one woman leaves at 3 to pick kids up from school, comes back at 6 and works unti 10. This is frowned upon.

But nobody minds if a male colleague who works long hours goes for a 'business' lunch and returns pissed for the rest of the day, or plays golf several days on end because it's 'business', and nobody minds if so-or-so can't sign necessary documents because they're out of the office on conferences or whatever twice a week - then the absence is justified even though the reason for the absence has absolutely nothing to do with the speed the business gets done at.

Absolute joke imo.

Another woman I know is pregnant and in the police force and has been put under immense pressure to return full time because otherwise she'll only be considered a 'part timer' and treated less well accordingly. They don't even have maternity police uniforms, so she has to wear her own clothes to work and not be seen in public FFS! And they've changed her hours without her consent because they don't think she'll be as committed now she's about to become a mum.

Stuff like this makes me

Yeah makes me too. We just need to keep making the point that part-time does not mean inferior in any way. It would help if more women were on side - unfortunately, there's a distinct lack of sisterhood - plenty of Mumsnetters seem to frown upon part-time workers, or accept that part-timers can't have careers, or (on another thread) think that they shouldn't apply for jobs if they are pregnant, etc.

Lougle had an excellent point.
It irritates me when my colleagues say "Enjoy your days off" when I leave on a Tuesday to return on Friday.

They are NOT days off - I am not contracted OR paid for those days.

I had my children quite late so have a fairly good career under my belt.
I will not apologise for choosing a good work/life balance. I have a young DS at junior school and teenagers - all need me in different ways.

To those of you with babies - they are the easiest to deal with - your time is needed much more when the kids are older IMO.

It has now been proven that I an actually the best value employee in my organisation - compared to salary/benefits etc. I make more for the company than any of the Directors.

The reason is I am efficient - you have to be when you have a client base and 3 days to deal with them.
I have no unnecessary meetings and my client visits are to the point, short and don't involve golf/pub.
I also run my own car (get expenses but no car allowance)

I also help train other staff, go in when the alarm goes off as I live close by, put the dishwasher on etc..

I am a bloody marvel and I will say it myself cos no-one else will!

I haven't had a pay rise for 3 years - private sector - recession.

Believe it or not, I love my job!

The bottom line is that you work to the best of your ability for the time you are there. Shit happens in this life and sometimes that creepy knob will get promoted over you but your time will come and your satisfaction should come from doing your best.

I have been counting the number of part-time workers in my firm at my level or above

And the surprise to me is that the number of men who work part-time is EXACTLY equivalent to the number of women

Does that surprise you? It surprised me.

But to the OP's point - all of those people have effectively given up any idea of career progression. Which is disappointing.

Staying later in the office doesn't necessarily mean someone is doing a better job.
BUT presumably you opted for part time because full time was more work than you wanted, so it seems strange to then complain
That your career has changed from the high flying one you previously had! If you go p/t you are basically accepting that you will put in less hours and allow your career to progress at a different rate. Otherwise why not remain f/t?

Im also a bit sceptical about this so called knowledge of how everyone else is performing . Performance management is a personal thing- you can't possibly know the detail of everyone elses

Just to clarify - I don't think being part time means you are less good, or less committed etc per se.

However, it is disingenuous to try to claim that if you previously were a f/t high flier, and opted to go p/t, that your attitude is totally the same as before. Presumably, you chose to go p/t because of some perceived advantage to you (eg wanting to work fewer hours/days, have lower pressure/demands etc)

Other people who choose to stay f/t are making a different choice. All things being equal, they are probably more likely to get promotion, and will see their career progressing faster, simply because they are there all the time.

I would question if you're really happy with your decision to go p/t if you feel disgruntled at the consequences of it

No I don't regret going part time. I just don't want to drift along whilst I am part time and not make at least some progress. That doesn't have to be a promotion by the way.

violethill I think most people are talking about losing out pro rata - i.e., they work less, and get paid less (obviously), but for the amount of work they do and the contribution they make they are passed over when it comes to promotions/pay rises and it is assumed that their attitude has changed (which it hasn't, necessarily!) or that they are less productive in the hours they do work. All this is pro rata which is the point - people are only expecting the recognition for the hours they do, but that that should be on a fair ratio with the people who work full time.

I think the pro rata arugment is fine, butis probably more difficult to quantify the higher up the career ladder you are, as in many jobs, it's not simply a case of 'working less and being paid less' - it's not simple input/output.

I am not saying p/t workers should be treated unfairly at all. That's not right. But in reality, to meet the demands of the employer, it may well be that people who are working f/t are better able to carry out certain roles, particularly when it comes to management/being available to clients

Yes, I definitely see what you're saying - my DH is a teacher and if he went part time he wouldn't really be eligible for a head of year job, for instance, and that seems fair enough. What I think is shocking is that in many sectors (not my own - and I'm ft anyway) there seems to be a blanket prejudice against part time workers that is not linked specifically to the demands of the role, and an assumption that the worker is now less committed. There are plenty of full time workers who are not committed at all, and plenty of part time workers who put enormous amounts of pressure on themselves to make up for lost time. I also think, as I said earlier, that there is real hypocrisy about what counts as 'work' - rearranging your hours to pick up your kids is bad, but long corporate lunches which mean you're not able to function properly for the rest of the day are fine, etc.

Most people on this thread seem to me to have been realistic and not complaining at all, but annoyed at prejudice and injustice in the workplace, which is in fact illegal (but goes on anyway).

People, people - some of you are still saying "I'm not against p/t workers BUT ..." then going on to spout rubbish about certain jobs not being possible for part-timers. It is perfectly possible for managers and heads of year to work part-time and do a good job FFS!

And don't forget jobshares, if there is a genuine need to have a body around all the time.

Everytime you make a negative statement about part-time workers, no matter how much you try to make it sound reasonable, you are indirectly attacking women who make up the majority of the part-time work force. STOP IT!

thefarside to be honest I was trying to be fair to violethill and not get into a big argument about it. If you read all my posts I am unequivocally on the side of part-time working, outraged at the prejudices that surround it, and have given several instances on this thread of the ways in which women I know have been unfairly discriminated against because of working part time. But I accept that I don't know everything about every workplace and that there may be jobs which aren't suitable for part time ... so please don't FFS me. I was trying to be fair to somebody I very clearly and very obviously disagree with and to concede that I don't know her sector as well as my own (in which part-time working is fully accepted and does not hinder women's progress).

So please read my comments in context before judging me.

takethatlady - I'm really sorry, my post wasn't aimed at you specifically but I can see why you think that as I was objecting to the idea that some jobs can't be done part time. I have re-read your posts and of course I can see your overall supportive position. I was criticising statements, not people, but should have worded my post differently.

I do think we need to challenge the idea that some jobs can't be done part-time as I believe this argument has been used (abused) in a way that discriminates against women.

If this thread hasn't died, I would be interested to hear (from anyone) some examples of jobs that cannot be done part-time.

Good idea farside. Sorry, overreaction on my part - I just really didn't want to seem as if I was ever on the side of unfair views about part time. Blame the preggo hormones :)

I'd also like to see what those jobs might be ....