Lawyer passed over for promotion because of flexible working

[RosieIrene]

I have been at my law firm for almost 9 years during which time i had two dd and took a total of 15 months off. When returned from having dd2 was granted request to work one day a week at home. Had a stellar review 4 weeks ago but was told because of political situation in the firm, there were limited advancement opportunities. Decided, after working 5 days a week since dd born 4 years ago that I might as well finally put in application to work 4 days a week. I just now found out that male associate with less experience than me has just been offered the position I was told 4 weeks ago is not available because of "politics". Grapevine suggests firm thinks I lack commitment because I have kids. Any suggestions about how to approach this?

B1977 - interesting comments about the 4 days. I had expected to do 4-5 days of work on 4 days but thought it would relieve some of the billing pressure because my target would go down by 20%.

B1977, the feeling I got is that in-house roles (the responsible ones) tend not to get advertised as flexible ones. Flexible in-house roles are handed out as sop to fulltime employees who have already proven themselves and apply for flex workig. But I don't want to prejudice RosieIrene if she is considering in-house. I was looking 5 years ago.

So not convinced, if you are at all like me you probably feel a bit awkward about doing non-chargeable work in a 5 day week so imagine what that would be like in a 4 day week - unless you are extremely well disciplined and great at saying no or delegating things like internal referrals you would be taking that work home and your firm is laughing all the way to the bank

RosieIrene, why that little shit. Oh god, I am no longer a fee-earner, but boy in my time, the deals that were struck behind closed doors as to who got made up and when. People were f..ked around big time. Some took the pain and eventually got made up after years of toil and others moved on. I am sorry this is happening to you.

Meeting billing targets presumably keeps the wolves at bay. But meeting a reduced target does not seem to merit giving you a promotion in the eyes of your appraiser.

I agree you just have to thrash it out with her and see what she says before considering your next move.

Why do you say the men are the ones earnign the money? Don't tell me your husband earns more than you or I will bury myself ina hole and die... not another who marries up? Why do so so many women. Thsi is the only reason women don't do well in most professions because their husbands earn more so if you do an objective consideratino of who stays athome it's always muggins mummy who does the martyr career sacrifice bit.

"He, however, although lacking in skill is adept at kissing a**, something I have neither the time nor the inclination do so."
Well what do you expect then? An important bit of going well at work which loads of women are frankly rubbish at is learning exactly that skill. It's arguably more important than anything. Get some classes in it perhaps but some women are pretty good at it thank goodness or we'd never have got anywhere.

Agree blueshoes but should not rule out looking, there is a massive skills shortage in a lot of professional areas so I suspect a lot of places might just put up with it. One of my 4-day a week clients is an ex-employment litigator working in an HR dept at a city bank, she is brand new but I will say she is on her blackberry when she should be having her day off!

It's time like this when Xenia truly comes into her own.

Bravo, Xenia.

Xenia - you make a lot of assumptions and judgements without having all the facts. Life isn't black and white - but first start digging your hole because yes, my husband makes more than me. However, I didn't "marry up" because in fact we met in law school and have gone through the process together. He was made up a partner before me and before we had kids (so no sacrifices made by any "martyr" "muggins" mummy) because he chose an area of law where no a* kissing had to be done during a boom time for that industry. In any event there is a line to be drawn between networking and playing the political game, which I and most other women are adept at, and "kissing a*" which to me means a loss of self respect and dignity. Enjoy your hole.

xenia, do you have these posts on cut and paste?
sorry to hear about the crap you're experiencing ri.
good luck with meeting.

I think I could do with more facts first

Limited advancement opportunities is an unusual line. Does this mean limited advancement opportunities for you, or for everyone? Is it a small firm?

The one thing I won't compromise upon in my team when they are looking for advancement opportunities is an acknowledgement of development needs.

I am suspicious of stellar reviews plus limited advancement opportunities. I acknowledge this is a mixed message but I'd want to understand what your development needs are, where you want to go, how you plan to get there, how you see yourself managing to negotiate the politics etc Who is your counselling partner? What are they doing to help you? What more do you need to demonstrate?

It is a good idea of Xenia's to stick a toe in the recruitment market, to see what is out there.

You know as well as I do the likely adverse consequences of action against the firm upon your career.

By the way - working 4 days is not the best political move in the book. IME

Does anyone know the name of a recently published book about male and female brains which suggests that brains are fundamentally different to the extent that men can work all week without seeing their children and feel absolutely no guilt, whereas women cannot? It would suggest that the reason women gravitate to flexible working is nature and not nurture (or socialisation). I haven't read the book and usually think such things are a waste of time, but if it is right, maybe it means Xenia is a man?!

That's just silly and rude

I work full-time as well

As many women do

You need to think about why you feel guilty and address that

Rather than dissing other women who are just doing their best for their families in professions where working part-time is culturally difficult

And coping with it too

Quattro - limited advancement opportunities were said to apply to everyone on basis of budget restrictions. Big firm. Mentor partner leaving. No replacement (I had expected to step into her shoes in some capacity). Could never take action against firm as DH is partner there. Only thought of working 4 days when was told there were no opportunties to advance so what was there to lose? Toes in the market.

The one thing that all partners have in common, absolutely ALL partners have in common, despite the many many different areas of law they work in, is that they have an ability to grasp the wider strategic issues and grasp them quickly.

Now you've explained that your DH is a partner in the firm, the issue has become a bit clearer to me.

You know that that is a very difficult situation for everyone. Most people in that sort of position do take certain steps to protect their own position.

Glad that your toes are in the water. Good luck with it.

QC - lighten up. No offence was intended and the book has been the subject of much debate recently in the press. I personally feel no guilt about any of my choices and was certainly making no value judgements about others. I thought we were all here to help each other.

You made a post suggesting that Xenia is a man and that women can't work full time without feeling guilty

It was not in the slightest a jokey post

And when someone responds in the spirit of the original post you tell them to lighten up

Let's park that for the time being.

I made a suggestion that you should look to your own development needs and asked you what those were.

You were silent.

Why is that?

It's realyl interesting research - a book by Pinker I think and a book I read and recommend to all mumsnetters called The Female Brain by a US doctor - it's really good. I have never said men and women were the same. I and a lot of women like me seem to have certain amounts of testosterone or natural drive or love of the work (or perhaps just being good at it - a lot of women who stay at home never cut it at work and this gives them an excuse for failure which sadly their husbands when they fail don't have). More men than women I think because both of brain chemistry and nurture and culture have that drive than women.

If someone's partner earns more then usually if push comes to shove the lower earner gives up work or puts hers or his on the back burner. In my case I would always have earned more than my teacher ex husband so we had exactly that same situation although it was only nearly 18 years in that he went part time from his choice. What is fascinating is most women except QC and me etc do earn less than their husbands when it comes to baby making stage so not surprising anyone with a rational economic head on them would have (if one career has to be scaled back) make that the woman. Thus my comment that the main reason women are doing so dreadfully badly at the top of just about anything is simply because they marry up whether consciously or unconsciously -even if they are both law or medical students she's going after for evolutionary and other unconscious reasons that man who betters her, who is cleverer, likely to be a good provider etc.

What does annoy is when people suggest if you don't work very much, aren't very dedicated and keep taking time out whether it's for the scrabble world championships to look after your horse or even a baby that people are surprised when that might have a smidegon of effect on their career. Anyway anyone brilliant will do well anywhere. If you aren't wanted don't downgrade the career and go part time move somewhere for higher pay with better prospects. It will be more fun than changing more nappies I can tell you...

"The rest of the department is baffled as, aside from me, there are several other much more qualified associates. He, however, although lacking in skill is adept at kissing a**, something I have neither the time nor the inclination do so. "

Rosie, you say that there are other people who didn't get the promotion too and are qualified. Are you sure that this is really about your flexible working and not the fact that this other guy is great at sucking up? As Xenia said, awful though it is, opting out of that is not an option if you want to progress. You simply can't say "I've got better things to do". That is HOW you make partner in law firms.

I know that HR have told you that the flexible working is a problem, but are you sure that they are not (in their blunt, insensitive and potentially litigation inducing way) saying "you need to network. You need to build emotional capital with the partnership. You need to be visible." Put through the idiot translator of many law firms, that comes out as 'you shouldn't be working part time or from home'. Getting to a senior position in a law firm isn't about just doing the job well, unfortunately. It's a partnership, and that's a very different beast to a limited company. It's about making the other partners like you and want you in their 'gang'. Yes, maybe that is wrong. But it's the way it is and the only way to change it is if, over time, the people in the 'gang' become more diverse. Suing just gets a pay off (I know you've said that you wouldn't do it, but along with moving on to different career options, it is basically the other choice).

Is there also a bit of an issue with you being married to a partner? I know that a lot of firms are very sensitive about having spouses in the same firm. In many, one or other has to leave. You are working full time now. Have you thought about going somewhere else and then asking about flexible working once you're settled in. Full time with one day a week from home isn't actually a big ask, particularly since I assume you have childcare every day and could therefore be flexible about the days if there were hearings. A lot of firms would LOVE a flexible working request that simple - rather than "I want to work 3 days only"

I am sorry if this sounds mean. It's not meant to. I'm just trying to add a different perspective to what others have said.

I assumed they weren't at the same firm but I might be wrong. If they are then one should leave of course.

Who would you like to be stuck at an air port for 20 hours in Siberia with? I think that's a good question isn't it? I think mmy daughter just got her first job because she probably passed that test with the people she will work with. Apparently they recruited a load of really dull people last year so this year they're trying to go for those who are fun and interesting to work with and good for them... obviously everyone meets the AAB/AAA, 2/1/first kind of criteria of course as well.

I think that's an excellent post by Ribena and I agree with every word of it. In fact nothing else I can add - she's said everything I would want to say.

Although I am more junior than Rosie, I have seen the 'stellar review but no chance of advancement just at the moment' used a lot at my firm by the partners who can't afford (or really can't face the idea ) of making a couple of people partners but also don't want to lose them.

I think it was Xenia who suggested getting other offers and waving them in front of them and asking them to match, even if it means sacrificing the 4/5 day week and that might help but to me it sounds like they will just mess you around forever if you stay.

If you are going to do 4 days, always make sure one of them is a Friday as IME this is when everything happens.....usually over drinks after work....

Actually I do have something else to add. I say this often and it might seem obvious, but sometimes it helps clear someone's mind a bit.

1. Work out what you are and are not happy with about your current situation.
2. Identify what you would consider to be a positive achievable and realistic outcome.
3. Work out what actions you can take to achieve that outcome as quickly and as smoothly as possible.

I think Xenia's option of getting some job offers is a good one.

Xenia - he is a partner at the same firm: "Could never take action against firm as DH is partner there."

Flowery - I agree with you!

"Apparently they recruited a load of really dull people last year so this year they're trying to go for those who are fun and interesting to work with and good for them... "

I have experience of that kind of recruitment, Xenia, in a very personal way. For two years, in the strategy house I worked in, there was a distinct policy of recruiting more charismatic people.

Guess what? The culture of the firm couldn't adapt / the charismatic people could sack the dull partners. Two years of recruitment resulted in not a single promotion to partner - everyone left.