Women in senior positions....

[SquishySquirmy]

I am really unsure of how to articulate this in such a way that it doesn't come across as either goady or offensive (not my attention at all).

But has anyone else noticed how, whilst women are very under-represented in senior roles, women with children are even more under-represented?

It struck me a little while ago how many very senior women (in politics and elsewhere) are childless/childfree. And its one of those things that once you start noticing it, you notice it everywhere.
It seems very obvious, but is rarely commented on.

Its tricky to talk about because I suppose it could come across as criticising individual women for choosing not to have children. Which would be a disgusting thing to do, and especially hurtful given it isn't always a choice.
eg, I don't believe that Theresa May's competence as prime minister is in any way affected by having/not having children. But it does concern me that it seems to be harder for female parents to reach the top roles than male parents.
Its not that I want to see fewer childless/childfree women in top roles at all, quite the opposite; its that I would like to see more mothers also reaching those positions.

When I look at the numbers, there is (to me) clearly something going on. Becoming a mother seems to hold women back in a way that becoming a father doesn't.

And of course, this is all really obvious isn't it? Plenty of women delay having children until they get their career established (all the while being bombarded by the media with dire warnings about biological clocks, fertility cliff edges etc) because they know this.

And yet I don't think the problem is talked about enough. I don't think it is possible to properly address the issue of inequality between the sexes unless we also address why it is so much harder for mothers to progress than fathers. For a start, the pool of "all men" is always going to be larger than the pool of "women who don't have children."

Again, I know I am not articulating myself very well. I struggle because discussing the issue properly can be mistaken for judging individual women in a very personal way (not my intention).

^ intention not attention obvs

In my experience what you're saying is true. All my senior female managers have not had children. Also, in my experience, they have been unsupportive of my decision to have children. I appreciate this isn't true of all senior women, but in my experience true.

I don’t think you’re saying anything against women in high positions without children at all. Taking time out of a career, even for just a small spell might affect your movement upwards, then the demands of looking after a growing person, managing childcare/pick ups etc will impact on what you’re able to do at work. From what I’ve seen the flexibility in hours etc. does often fall to women, though of course some men do adjust their work patterns too-my husband in fact! In my workplace there is 1 senior leader who is a woman, who has children, then 4 more women who don’t (including the CEO). I think some of it is down to unequal maternity/paternity in my opinion, not wanting to lose family time to extensive work outside the office (all our SMT work an inordinate amount in their personal time and are expected to drop things to attend meetings or travel).

Theresa May,
Nicola Sturgeon,
Cressida Dick*
Dany Cotton*

Are the most senior ones that come to mind. And its not a criticism of them at all (Dany Cotton in particular is brilliant and does a lot to help other women follow the path she blazed). But they are often mentioned by those trying to prove that "women have it equal now because they're in the most senior positions" etc.

At my last workplace, only one member of the senior management was female. She was brilliant, hard working and personable and I suspect had to be better/work harder to get to her position than many men have to be. She also didn't have any children, whilst all the men in senior management did.

*(I don't think, but am not 100% sure).

Alibaba I agree that taking time out from a career will affect progression. I just don't think it should affect it as much as it does. Our personal life will always have some effect on our career, but the consequences of the decision to have children seem to be disproportionately huge.

I agree with you. Although one thing i would say is that it is a generational thing. I am a senior woman (on the Board etc) and have 2 dcs. I am in my mid 40s. If i think of the women 20 years older than me so workwise 2 generations above me (who were the senior women when I first started working) most of them didn't have dcs and in my experience, most didn't help other women. They did belatedly as they headed towards retirement but it all felt to me as too little too late. I always think the Madeline Albright quote is especially for that generation. Generation 1 above me, so 10 years older in their mid 50s now, you saw more women with kids but not many, helped other women a little bit more, but still mostly lacked the empathy gene. I think it's only my generation now (mid 40s now coming through as senior women in their fields) where there are more women with dcs. History will judge how much we help other women along the way! Only my experience so appreciate I have probably just offended a whole bunch of people!

Having a baby was career suicide for me. In addition to being taken seriously because I Am unable to stay late every day I have been excluded from promotion opportunities. Maternity discrimination is a very real issue.

I agree, and I don't have children.

I rose to the top of my profession very quickly - as fast as the fastest men tended to. I came across no women who had done so as quickly if they'd had children.

I had no kids.

It’s not goady to say it. But it is stating the obvious. Reams upon teams of research has shown that motherhood is what puts the boot into women’s careers. Childfree women are also affected because they are less likely to be promoted because employers think they will have children at some point. But it is motherhood and unequal distribution of childcare between men and women that pushes women out. That is also reinforced by high childcare costs and a hostile environment to parents. It doesn’t help when so many women insist that they ‘chose’ to abandon their careers and that is also used by MRAs like Jordan Peterson who try to deny the gender pay gap. Yes, it’s a choice, but it’s one made in the context of the fact that mothers are not supported. Would you make the same choice if there was cheap and good childcare, flexible hours and your partner picked up half the workload?
So yes it’s really not surprising that many of the women who do reach the top don’t have children. But they don’t have it easy either.

Hmm. I know anecdote isn't data but in my field this isn't so true - third sector - I'm female with kids and I'm SMT, there are 2 other women on the SMT also with kids, one man with kids and two other women who are child free.

What @Whompthatwillow says is totally true

As a female with child care responsibilities you simply can't commit in the same way as men who do not have these responsibilities

As a female senior manager with 1 x DD it is totally obvious. I had promotions when it became easier to fully commit. When DD was 5 I restarted spending a week away internationally each month, going to meetings at the other end of the country getting home when she was already in bed, working late to get work out to clients on time and doing work at weekends.

As a result I was promoted in exactly the same as my male peers from this point on in a very male dominated industry.

The 5 year halt in my career and promotion prospects was totally understandable despite working F/T during this period. I was exceptionally lucky - I had split with my partner and moved in with my parents who provided free childcare including running DD around to clubs, parties etc

The halt in my case was not due to being female. Recently the culture has changed and I can work from home as and when required, I can 'buy' additional leave via salary sacrifice, meetings can be held via Skype and I don't want any further promotion anyway so I take full advantage. It just takes many years to get to that position and unfortunately the years when it would be more useful ( ie when DC are little) clash with the time when your promotion prospects at their highest.

As a woman who wants kids you have to make choices - you quite simply can't have it all.

Yes i suspect the underlying reasons women with children don't progress actually affects all women,

TheMended, no, you are right. This is one area where anecdotes should not be used. The gender pay gap and promotion gap is well publicised and economists have clearly identified a direct correlation between having children and a lower chance of promotion. Might not be true in your workplace, but this stuff has been proven. It’s not a question or a debate- it is harder for women, especially women with children, to reach the top of their chosen profession.

The career paths of men and women are indistinguishable once there is "someone else" to take care of their life outside the workplace.

I went to a career talk by one such woman. I was a single woman with two small children, and she described a pathway that was closed to me. Whopping great big structural barriers.

Her husband gave up his own job to pursue a hobby (writing). He managed the "staff" - housekeeper, cleaners, gardeners - and managed the home, walked the dog and booked fabulous down-time treats. She had no children. They moved constantly to take up positions that would improve her chance of progression. From where I was sitting, she had no distractions that would wear down her energy.

I knew then that I was not in a position to emulate a woman who had got to the very top of my organisation. I wholly rejected the notion that she was my role model. Instead she had exposed a truth about structural barriers.

Its perfectly possible to hold a senior position as a woman with children. I know several who do.

They are all women who have partners who do the lions share of childcare/household running (and who work little or not at all outside the home). Some also have an army of staff and GPs on tap but not all.

Its not a new idea - its how men in senior positions (who also have children) have been managing it for years.

The reason there are so few women with children in senior positions is there are so few men willing to take the 'home' role.

It's a truism to say that what women are often in need of is a wife.

I am often a bit narked at this sort of question (not at you personally, OP!), because I never see women like me even mentioned. I worked my socks off through the academic STEM route, only to find that the pressure of presenteeism was an unfathomably high price to pay. I pulled out before I even got my first post-doc because I could see already there was no means to have a balanced life in my subject area - it was common practice for the senior men to come in on Christmas Day even though they had small children. I didn't want that for my life and it was definitely in my top three reasons for changing track. But that's never mentioned in any analysis of why women leave STEM jobs.

I think as DameofDilema says for someone (typically a man) to be prepared to go into work ion Christmas Day, there has to be someone at home who is going to enable that. I totally agree that if you don't have that then it is impossible to either rise to the top or remain at the top if you have kids. I think whether youre male or female, being in a senior position requires sacrifices. And bottom line is that a lot more men are prepared to make those sacrifices (enabled by their OHs) than women are (who typically either don't want to or aren't as enabled). I know plenty of men who have come to their careers and their biggest regret is that they thought that they would have a lot of time for their families when their careers are over and they're in early retirement, and they have missed their boat. Their families have cracked on with things without them. It is only then they have regretted the presenteeism. OTOH, some people never regret it because it's just not that important to them.

Yes most senior positions are filled with males however most companies I have worked there are also senior female positions and these women have had children. I have just recently been promoted to director and am pregnant I see my company now as more forward focused that they would promote me knowing I’m going off on maternity leave soon but I think it sends out a great message to the company and to women working in my company that anything is possible. Personally I feel the woman who work for me in senior positions with children have great skills to offer as do women without it’s all about the attitude of the individual

This reminded me of a discussion I had a few years ago with a colleague who had just returned from a year's maternity leave. She was incensed that, while she was away, a few of us (myself included) had been able to continue with our career development, particularly as one was now her manager.

She believed that her career should have advanced in her absence, even suggesting that raising a child was better for developing leadership skills than one of the courses provided by our employer. To be honest, I felt a bit insulted because it seemed dismissive of all the hard work we'd put in. I realise the answers I get here might be somewhat skewed in a certain direction but was I being unreasonable to think that having children is ultimately a choice and, while maternity leave is certainly a good thing because not having it impacts the child as well as the person who made that choice, it is unfair for a new mother to expect anything more than their career progressing from where they left off?

I think @Gronky that the issue generally isn't your career progressing from the point at which you went on maternity leave, but actually your career not seriously progressing again at all unless you have a lot of support at home.

I absolutely agree there. A year out of work isn't a huge obstacle but, certainly in my field, it seems like you can barely sustain a hobby if you want to progress to a senior position. Male or female, the only senior staff members I'm aware of who have families are those with fully grown children and even the people with hobbies that require any sort of time commitment don't seem to need sleep.

Yeah totally agree.
Angela Merkel and Julia Gillard also don't have kids.
Anecdotally the most successful women I know in a personal capacity (high up in publishing, medicine, civil service) also don't have DCs. I think there's a debate to be had here but it always seems to get a bit nasty. Infuriating how Trump, Obama, Cameron, Clegg, Blair, Bush (both of them!) etc all had kids when they became PM/ President and it wasn't remarkable at all

Having kids as a man means that your solid and reliable. Having kids as a woman means you're flaky and a risk.

Yes, the observation that women with DC are vanishingly rare is true IME

I also agree that there is a generational difference: very senior women in their mid 60s tend not to have DC at all; women in their mid 50s tend to have had just one DC; it's women in their 40s who are most likely to have 2+ DC.

I can only think of one senior woman I know professionally who had a DC when they were very young and was able to commit to advancing their career when they were in their late 30s with an adult child. I sometimes wonder if that's a better model for many women, rather than following the typical track of climbing up the ladder then stepping off for a bit to have kids then trying to get back on again