Well, that’s a study that’ll be hard to knock down. Apparently subtle references to PTA membership in a job application result in significant drops in perceived competence, commitment, and offered less salary.
To a large extent, mothers are rated as less hirable, less suitable for promotion and deserving of lower salaries because they are believed to be less competent and less committed to paid work.
The opposite was true as well. The highest scores for competence and commitment also went to women — but in this case it was those with no children. Apparently, the reviewers felt that a woman who had sacrificed the chance to have children must be ultra-committed to work. Here’s how the competence/commitment rankings fell out:
Female non-parents
Male parents
Male non-parents
Female parents
I’m amazed they can get that big of a difference off a change that small. Hrm.
That sorta makes sense to me. Im not saying its a good practice to hire based on those findings, but it would seem to me that a mom is less committed just because she is a mom. I cant think of a single mother i have met that would put her job above her kids. On the other hand Americans in general apply too much significance to work, often times at the expense of other areas of their lives. So maybe the study is right, but its still funky, because the employer is asking for too much commitment in the first place.
It sadly makes sense to me too. Our society expects good mothers to put their children before anything else and our society also expects good workers to put their job before anything else. These are not compatible, so a job interviewer who buys into the “work is priority one” nonsense that corporate America loves so much would clearly have a problem with hiring a good mother.
I’m not saying it right, I’m just saying it’s prevalent and insoluble until our culture gets some saner norms for how committed individuals are supposed to be towards their jobs.
Oh, I agree society expects the results to be that way, I just can’t imagine how anyone would think that’s the way things actually are. I certainly wouldn’t have come up with that stack - IMHO, single guys have no lives and are willing to work like dogs. By contrast the married guys manage to slip mysteriously slip out all the time. I really don’t put too much in that though.
Well consider the married guy with kids. The reality of social expectations for this demographic is the guy’s duty to provide for the family. This does not always have to include actually interacting with the family, only making sure they are provided for in material terms. This is where the workaholic dad syndrome comes from. With this in mind the average working stiff with a family is more likely to stick around for the long haul, and take more potential abuse than a working stiff with no family, since he is lacking the social preassure to provide.
One important limitation of this study is that it used college undergrads as the recommenders. While the average college student may perceive moms to be deserving of less pay, relative to other people, people who actually do hiring in real-world settings may be less prone to this bias.
That said, this finding may be valid in small businesses where the owner hires everyone. It’s also worth noting that there was no significant difference in male & female raters in the study – both penalized moms a similar amount.
I’m very reluctant to answer this with real world answers instead of passing it on to the HR department.
Especially when it’s presented by you Jason. Do you actually want to know or are you looking for fuel to some sort of self-righteous argument with an agenda?
Well consider the married guy with kids. The reality of social expectations for this demographic is the guy’s duty to provide for the family. This does not always have to include actually interacting with the family, only making sure they are provided for in material terms. This is where the workaholic dad syndrome comes from. With this in mind the average working stiff with a family is more likely to stick around for the long haul, and take more potential abuse than a working stiff with no family, since he is lacking the social preassure to provide.[/quote]
I’d disagree with that somewhat. Many young professionals like computer programmers or banking reps are young single guys or girls and they take a ton of abuse.
Oftentimes people take that abuse (and is it really abuse if it’s extra work willingly taken on to get more pay or career advancement later?) so that they can get that initial start up phase of a career out of the way before they start a family rather than waiting until after when the stresses are much higher with small children and a spouse.
Do you guys actually know any working mothers? I bet not, because if you did, you would know that many moms can’t wait to get to work. Work is so much easier than taking care of the kids, the house, and the husband. It is much easier to be a good employee than a good mom (near impossible with society’s ideals today). Plus when you do a good job, your boss thanks you and you get a raise. Your family is unlikely to even comment on anything you do, and then expect more more more.
A woman I work with has 4 young children, whom she loves dearly. However, She often comments “nothing here can ever be as stressful as dealing with 4 kids”
One important limitation of this study is that it used college undergrads as the recommenders. While the average college student may perceive moms to be deserving of less pay, relative to other people, people who actually do hiring in real-world settings may be less prone to this bias.
That said, this finding may be valid in small businesses where the owner hires everyone. It’s also worth noting that there was no significant difference in male & female raters in the study – both penalized moms a similar amount.[/quote]
Assuming the focus group survey is the only mechanism that they used. The process also didn’t account for the organizational behavior or culture of a company. They plopped under-grad headhunters into the role of recruiter and expected them to assume the beliefs of a fictional company. So like Budd said the study isn’t perfect.
When recruiting for a position like Marketing Director @113K/year, which again assuming is the only position they tested, I would expect the study to replicate the business world. As others have said it makes sense. Why?
After working for Bain, consulting with many large companies, meritocracy is a significant factor. First, the hiring manager has to perform and next, the direct report has to perform. Putting PTA on your resume is a mistake.
The resume has to sell you. Not make questions. The hiring team will question one the logic of taking a line to tell them you have a family. So what? Tell me that in the interview.
And two they won’t fill a valuable interview slot with someone who may not fit the role. A Marketing Director is a huge position. I would not want someone who can’t keep up with a competitive internal/external environment.
Why should I hire someone who wants to start a family requiring serious time away from a busy position. The direct reports will have to assume their responsibilities. They now have the lead with external customers relations, marcom, etc. The corporate world is a fast paced place, built on meritocracy. HP will lay-off 25k people next week. Who do you think they will choose? The excess baggage.
So, Jason, hold hands with google and tell me how this is politically related. How will socialism makes working mothers more equal? I’m sure Singapore and China and Europe have no meritocracy at work.
Do you guys actually know any working mothers? I bet not, because if you did, you would know that many moms can’t wait to get to work. Work is so much easier than taking care of the kids, the house, and the husband. It is much easier to be a good employee than a good mom (near impossible with society’s ideals today). Plus when you do a good job, your boss thanks you and you get a raise. Your family is unlikely to even comment on anything you do, and then expect more more more.
A woman I work with has 4 young children, whom she loves dearly. However, She often comments “nothing here can ever be as stressful as dealing with 4 kids”[/quote]
And who pushes those “near impossible” ideals exactly? Perfectionists (and those lovely feminists) who think you can “have it all”. Yeah, family can be ungrateful and it is a damn tough job. The working world can be that way too. The pay off for raising a family well, is good, well adjusted kids, a happy family and one thats not killing each other. If one doesn’t want that hassle or can’t see the benefit in that, then don’t start a family and have 4 bloody kids.
There is a huge myth in our society that the only way to have well adjusted kids is for the mother to stay home and cater to their (including the husbands) every whim. Every mother that I know, and I know quite a few since most of my friends have small children, have times when their kids drive them absolutley nuts, and they have to get away. There is no benefit to society when mom is home being driven absolutely bonkers with no professional or intellectual outlet.
And on Singapore… (not necessary about meritocracy, but Singapore has lots of working mothers… 100% employment, and a society that needs more workers, especially Singaporean ones)
I’m sure Singapore and China and Europe have no meritocracy at work.
For all eligible married mothers with citizen births, including female managerial, executive and confidential staff, civil servants and statutory board employees, the Children Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) will provide for 12 weeks of maternity leave up to the fourth child:
*
For the first and second confinements, the first 8 weeks of maternity leave will continue to be employer-paid. The additional 4 weeks (9th to 12th week) will be funded by the Government, and capped at $10,000 (including CPF contributions).
*
For the third and fourth confinements, the full 12 weeks of maternity leave will be funded by the Government, and capped at $30,000 (including CPF contributions).
Who in the hell are you and what the fuck is your problem? Where in the hell did this 20-posts-or-less hit squad come from that’ decided the way to elevate the debate is to follow Jason around and call him a commie every time he posts something? Do you get how retarded that is, both in the sense of your personal stupidity and in the original meaning of holding something back, in this case, the discussion?
