High earning mothers

[ClarissaG]

I'm interested to start a discussion group for Mums and Mums to be who are juggling (or planning to juggle) a high flying career and motherhood. I loath to use the term 'Power Mums', but those who earn enough (£100k plus) to afford a team of help, but have the kind of pressures and working hour expectations that that level of salary brings.

I read the Mumsnet Guest blog with interest (www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_blogs/1977242-Why-is-society-so-unsupportive-of-high-achieving-power-mums) but the comments less so.

Is there scope for a supportive group for such Mums with practical ideas, experiences and thoughts rather than judgement about whether we can 'have it all'?

I am mid thirties, a VC, 12 weeks pregnant and have not yet told my fellow partners. I want it all but have no idea if that is realistic or how my future is going to pan out!

In most professions the fewer hours you put in the worse you are.

I half agree Laura and half don't. If you put more hours in you are more experienced. But it doesn't mean you are innately better at the job.

Plus, why is it necessary to gain so much experience in such a short time? Some people would rather get to a particular level of expertise by working 40 hrs a week over 8 years, rather than by working 80 hours a week over 4 years. Nothing wrong with that IMO. At present however many jobs - in particular the intellectually demanding, well paid jobs - do not offer that option.

I guess the issue is, why do we have to 'get up at 6am' to 'catch up on emails, read the FT/whatever rocks your boat' and then get ready to go to work? Why is it that the regular 9-5/6pm thing isn't 'good enough' where we have time to do all and more.

I'm not advocating the work to rule model... where people won't do anything beyond what's written in their contract - I think those days are over. I think yes, we should lean in particularly if it's a project/task that we are really interested in... (I think that's what motivates us intrinsically - and helps make up the time where we have to do the mundane but necessary - for me, exam marking!!!)...

but why is it so necessary to work those 80h in 2 years? and why was that young person in your daughter's firm seen in a negative light (that was the message I got from your post Laura)? like you said, she could have died of exhaustion in the meantime - the intern in Merrill did didn't he?).

Laura - of course you can do alot of those things now, because you work for yourself and you bring it a big enough crust to support(ed) 5 kids in private education etc. Alot of us can't work for ourselves (yet or ever)... but I don't think that necessarily should equate us having to be 'chained' to the desk.

I don't do the punishingly long hours anymore. It wouldn't make me any more effective, nor successful, nor would it make me any happier.

My typical day.....I normally do about 30 mins of emails before the dcs are up, then 30 mins on way to work. I drop the dcs off twice a week to school, go to the gym twice a week and normally running late once a week so rarely start work before 9.30am. I work through lunch and aim to finish at approx 6pm. I rarely do meetings after 5pm as that just means I will be late. I will literally walk out on people halfway through sentence since most of the time whatever people have to say at that time is not that urgent nor important. I go home (doing emails on the way home) see dcs, hear about their day, read stories, sing nursery rhymes and put them to bed. Anything urgent I walked out on, I deal with at 8pm, else I will check emails for about 30 mins at about 10pm. I don't work weekends.

Of course, sometimes I do a breakfast meeting, or dinner, and, probably about 6 weeks of the year (not consecutive) I might have a dreadful run of nights when I don't make it home for bedtime. I might also work maybe 1/2 weekends in the year. However, I also travel once a month for a few days at a time so it makes me much more precious about my time at home because I usually leave home on a Sunday and it interrupts our family weekend.

If i wanted to, I could stop work and go and pick up the dcs at 3pm and cook supper, take them to activities etc. That would be a giant waste of my time. As Laura said earlier the dcs are cranky. Leaving work early and acting as a taxi driver and Cook is not quality time with the dcs. That's grunt stuff, for which I pay my nanny handsomely. I do come home early to do pick up once a week which dd loves but she is cranky and tired about 10 minutes later. She normally perks up after I give her a snack and milk, at which point our nanny takes her off to ballet while I work from home. Best of both worlds!

I take 6 weeks of holidays a year. I need it! I am able to work as I do because I manage a large team but delegate everything except key decisions, meetings etc. I have also slimmed down my direct reports so that i am only working with experienced people who can think for themselves and don't need me to do it for them. Years ago, someone gave me some good advice - he said being a leader is about making a series of decisions and interventions. At the end of the day, I earn my crust as a leader for making the big decisions when it really counts and being there when it really counts. Those moments of time are far more important and valuable and recognising that means I am comfortable that my value isn't measurable in how many hours I crank out at my desk.

The example about 2 years PQ with 80hrs per week being the equivalent of 4 yrs PQ on a 40 hr week. Yes, if the quality of work is equivalent. If it is not due to a presenteeism culture.

My work is mostly project based and I put the time in when needed to meet deadlines. But I really object to colleagues who feel the need to work late when they aren't under the same pressure. Just to be seen at their desks. It's the worst kind of competitive presenteeism. And usually goes along with inefficient working during the day- lots of chatting, coffee/fag breaks etc.

Well said ice. Very true in my workplace.

Hi. i've been reading and lurking on this thread for a while. Can I join? I just about fulfill the criteria in terms of pay (most definitely pre-tax), however I'm not in law/finance as most of you seem to be. I am a hospital consultant, so the comments up thread about the number of hours worked really hit home.
I did some horrendous hours as a trainee, but now have a much more civilised time. I still work at least one evening a week and one in four weekends, but the specialty I do is very much all or nothing, so i may spend most of that time at home or, conversely, may end up in all night/ weekend.
I have 3DC and a DH who has his own business, but is quite capable of doing as much, if not more, with the DC and around the house. We have a great nanny/housekeeper and a cleaner which obviously makes life easier.

Totally agree about presenteeist "make work" not counting Ice.

Also, work done when tired/late at night is not nearly as efficient or effective as work done when fresh.

So if someone is working an 80 hour week, the last 20 hours (let's say) are probably pretty rubbish quality and/or could have been done in 5 hours by a fresh pair of eyes.

WiseKneeHair welcome! I am interested - how do you manage when you have a sudden all nighter/weekend demand? Does your DH take charge of childcare on those occasions?

Sorry, got waylaid waffling on about myself, but meant to comment on ice's post. I agree with what she is saying. In my specialty (surgical subspecialty) the number of hours operating are very important and that's where there is an impact on training when the length of training is not increased to make up for the reduction in operating. However, there is definitely areas where some people, ususally men, just have this token presentism. I found that my time management improved drastically when I had DS1 and I wanted to get home for his bedtime. I had one boss, many years ago who used to do 5pm ward rounds . There was no reason for this, he used to spend the afternoon doing his admin/ paperwork and then turn up at 5pm. it used to drive me mad. as I may have mentioned to him once or twice but I could never get him to start earlier. ironically, he had young children, too and a SAHW. i think he did it so he could say to her "Sorry, I couldn't get home for bath/bed time, I was doing the ward round"

Ha! I hadn't realised how much this annoyed me, but as this was about 11 years ago it obviously did. in fcat, it was working for him that made me go part time for the 6-7 years after that.

Thanks for the welcome mini.
Yes, DH does the childcare then. I went back to work when DC1 was 13 weeks old to a 1 in 5 resident rota. This meant that I would leave on the Friday morning and come home again at about 8pm on the Monday! it has got a lot easier now that they are older and I am more senior, so was worth those tough early years.

All good points. I am not necessarily advocating very long hours although if you adore your work and prefer it to changing the umpteenth nappy or ironing the short if a husband it is not morally wrong to work long hours if you want to and it is likely that those of us who prefer the work and put in the hours will earn more and do better. I don't think that is necessarily a bad correlation although it will annoy the slackers as it were. You can all hit me for saying that.

I think in many of these legal and medical professional careers on there the early years are long hours and you accept that price because you then have years after with more control, more money and sometimes shorter hours or at least hours you control. I am not an advocate for long hours cultures particularly. I had baby 1 when I was 22 and left work on time certainly when I was breastfeeding the first three. I doubt that was great for my career although I've done pretty well 30 years on.

As WKH just posted it is often intermittent. I think my daughter had an easy period earlier int he year and around the time of her marriage and honey moon the firm were particularly good at keeping the hours better and they hired more staff - they had found it very very hard to find anyone suitable, been trying for a year. Then obviously recently she's been in a very bad phase. She is about to do 6 months of a secondment when I think she'll leave work at 6.30 every night and is looking forward to it. So if it comes and goes like that it's not a problem. If it is every single week you are working and every weekend it is stupid of companies to require that of anyone.

The point though about the more you do things when you are learning the better you are is valid. If you do half the hours of surgery or drafting contracts etc in your first few years than someone else you will not be as good. I am sorry if this will annoy the part timers and housewives but if you take 3 1 year maternity leaves in the 4 years after you qualify you have one year of experience. You are highly likely to be really useless compared to someone who has done 4 years without 3 years of them off at home. Now that may pan out over 30 years and not matter but in the early years it does. So pay the 4 years but really 1 year person a 1 year wage BUT that will breach employment law so that person due to the effect of employment law is going to find it harder to get a job on their next hiring cycle as they are really a 1 year person masquerading as 4.

Obviously certain tasks for work do improve according to how often they are done, but there is also another type of experience.

The experience of just living and havin time to reflect and mature as a person can also be hugely beneficial to an employer. This kind if growth can be limited if someone works so much that they don't really stop to think and learn about these things and they can be essential skills.

So the person who took three years of mat leave and worked for a year has also presumably done some growing an maturing during that time, so not just got one year of experience.

Someone up thread mentioned a colleague who has done massive hours and been given promotions etc. that's fine except that often employers start to subtly hint that everyone should emulate them, but I have yet to hear of employers then giving everyone massive promotions and pay rises. Even in businesses where the profits will go up that doesn't happen, let alone academia or a business where you can't bill clients by the hour.

There are only so many promotions that will be handed out and it is a competition. People who are seen to work harder, even if they don't always get better results, will be the ones who get rewarded the most. I have seen it happen so many times.

But once again we come back to choice. Not all of us can choose our workload or our hours. I think I'm currently doing 2/2.5 FTE's worth of work. I literally have no option but to work long hours and as soon as I talk myself into being disciplined and leaving at 6.45 every night something goes wrong because I haven't done it or not properly.

I often feel like for the company I work for this is all a test - let's see how much we can put on her before she snaps. My bosses have almost no tolerance for mistakes (and you could argue I get paid v well so I should not make any). But and I see that the more senior people get the more they work, not less.

Doesn't help that senior ppl are all men with SAHM wives (the latter is key) so they have literally no time boundaries. I get called into meetings at 7pm all the time. My boss can leave work at 8 and still be dad of the year, easy when you get home to food on the table, bathed kids, homeworkers done, just waiting for goodnight kiss. And all his life is planned for him, groceries, kids activities, weekends, holidays.

Par for the course I guess. But still quite hard to manage.

Hi, another newbie here although I've been following the thread from the start. Some of the posts are really inspirational and have reminded me of all the reasons why its so important to continue on the career track even with young children. I'm a hospital consultant too ( waves to wisekneehair!) in a fairly busy specialty so evenings/weekends are par for the course although this has gotten a bit easier since I've started a new job. Don't have a nanny at the mo, just have one young child at nursery although this will change as I'm currently pregnant and cant see how I will manage without one especially as DH is away quite a bit (and at short notice) with his job.

Really its so nice reading this thread to see that you can combine a high flying career with children. I've fairly recently moved to a smallish village and have yet to find another working mum!!

Novice I admire your routine and your discipline. I think that would be a realistic setup for me too in my role but personally I am still struggling with underdelegating and saying yes to too many things, so I tend to work much longer hours than I probably need to.

Actually, having children which also require my time has helped me work on some of those skills (notably delegation) which are in any case critical to progressing career.

I also agree that a long maternity leave may hold you back short term but may well be the right decision long term. Personally I found it a great way to take stock and develop other sides of myself and my colleagues (and my boss in particular) have commented how much I moved forward in my role on my return!

Essentially becoming a parent has forced me to operate in a more "senior" way and I don't think my career would have progressed as much if I had still been chained to my desk for 60 hours a week.

Interesting point about the time demands of family life encouraging you to behave in a more "senior" way. I have always been quite efficient but I have definitely noticed that I am significantly more so post-baby. Almost all academics I know have work/life balance problems - so everyone works at weekends and in the evening. But I hadn't thought about being not just more efficient/more focused while at work (because the hours are precious) but also being more authoritative, though I think that is true as well actually. I've certainly gained confidence in the last year or so, partly in ways that I think would have happened anyway with increasing experience, contacts etc, but I do think becoming a mother played into that. Maybe also because I look quite young and dress smartly (for academia - always heels and a skirt/dress if I am teaching or meeting students) and that combination definitely seems to elicit patronising attitudes from older male colleagues - whereas now I've had a baby the ones with children feel we have something in common and the ones without just seem a bit scared!

For me, i think it just forced me to learn some of those skills I should have been developing anyway and which were holding me back.

I think another unintentional benefit has been that i seemed to get more respect from some of the more senior (and often quite patronising) women in the organisation. I am no longer the "young one" (although I had my children relatively "early" compared to them - at 32!) I also look (and in many ways feel) quite young and have always felt that makes it more difficult to be taken seriously, particularly among women!

Bryn, it was the same for me all those years ago. I graduated at 20 and was working when I was 21 after post grad. I was much younger than many but having 3 babies in my 20s gave me lots more in common with senior people and clients and it helped with gravitas I suppose, made up for the being very young.

Good luck with the baby flyingc (my brother is a consultant in the NHS and has young children). We certainly found with 3 under 5 a daily nanny was the cheapest option. I waited until she came in the morning and their father got home first to let her go at 6. She also covered the school holidays for the older ones once they were at school whilst looking after the younger one full time so it solved the holiday problem in a way nurseries don't.

Interesting point above that those of us who have no problem with long hours (in my case, children are older, I am really into the work, the longer I work the more I am paid - I keep all the money) that we might be setting a bad example by working hard. I do think in bigger firms older people can help by saying - go home, it's late (and plenty of them do say that). There is no point in making staff be utterly exhausted. However I don't think we should castigate women or men who choose to lean in whether that is because they don't have children or they are seeking to avoid seeing them before bed or their children have grown up or whatever. These things are just facts - if you don't have other obligations or hobbies you rush from work to do you might well choose to work late. I know my second daughter likes working until about 7 or 7.30 when lots of people leave earlier at her place because it is very quiet then and she will often be going on to play a sport or go out to a bar at 8 so staying on working is a good use of that time. It is utterly different for most parents of course.

Slightly off point but I'd welcome views on this forum on a question in a reference form I've come across, it asks for the number and ages of all children under 5. Has anyone come across that before?
It's from a multinational (UK based) company and for a professional position. I'm somewhat stunned, surely that's irrelevant to the suitability of the candidate?

I can understand asking about duration of parental leave (which the form also does) but dates of birth of children??

(I'm not the candidate btw).

Maybe it's a diversity monitoring thing if not then that sounds hugely inappropriate Million.

There's a positive slant - perhaps they are actively trying to advantage anyone with three under five?!

It's unusual.
If I were an employer I would like to know and presumably it is being asked of men and women. I suspect it's an illegal question in the UK. They may be able to say it's only passed on to the life insurance department in case you die and those recruiting you never see the information but I doubt it. Mind you I was hired when I had a 1 year old years ago and again when 5 months pregnant with number 3 so every 20+ years ago employers were not utterly against working mothers. In fact if they can see you work very hard and well and have children and an established nanny/childcare arranged that is probably much less risky hiring the 5 months pregnant mother of 3 who is committed to work than someone who might well leave for ever when a first baby comes.

Also that question is very intrusive. What if your children are dead or your ex wife has taken them to New Zealand and you're never allowed to see them.

It's odd that it has appeared on a form for referees (not the candidate) to complete. A referee may not even have that sort of info.

What would be the implications of leaving that question blank? Especially if the form is meant to be completed by a referee, not the candidate? Would this be legally acceptable (or possibly a comment saying 'I don't know')? Or could the candidate be on dodgy ground?

Yes indeed. But that's why I wondered if it might be a possible diversity thing - for example if negative comments are made by a referee about someone's availability outside core hours, or someone has had a lot of sickness, then the young child info might explain that to some extent?

Or they are asking the referee precisely because it's not legal (or at least bad practice) to ask the candidate.

I am sure it is the more cynicalpoint - that they daren't ask the employee so they think they can sneak it in by asking the referred although references are usualyl obtained after minds are made up so a bit late to sack her because she has triplet new borns and 2 toddlers at home.
Also to require the referred to supply confidential personal data about the employee without the employee consent I would have thought breached the Data Protection Act unless the information were in the public domain (eg in my case any google search discloses I have children etc although I turned down a request today from the Daily Mail to talk about how women with children are less likely to suffer marriage break up I am afraid - too busy even etc.)