Manage Your Life

Friday, December 11, 2009

Have you experienced the "motherhood penalty"?

Getty Images

Getty Images

We know there is still work to do to close the wage gap between women and men. But researchers at Cornell University say there is another gap to close between two groups of women--mothers and their peers without children. They call it the "motherhood penalty" because they found through an experimental study that if two women with similar experience and skills apply for a job, the one who is a mother is less likely to get it.

Using fake resumes for two equally qualified candidates–one childless, one a mom—the researchers found that the mother was 100-percent less likely to be hired when she applied for a position. Mothers were consistently ranked as less competent and less committed than women who were not moms. "I was not surprised to find that mothers were discriminated against, but I was very surprised by the magnitude of the discrimination," wrote Shelley Correll, now an associate sociology professor at Stanford University and one of the lead researchers. "With gender or race, we often talk about the subtle ways that stereotypes are disadvantaging. With mothers, the effects were huge, such as being about 100% less likely to be recommended for hire than
childless women and being offered much lower starting salaries."

As for men, fathers got higher ratings than guys without kids.

In another study by the researchers, fake resumes were used to apply to 638 real jobs (entry-level and mid-level marketing and business jobs) during an 18-month period. Tracking interview requests, childless women got 2.1 times as many callbacks as mothers with similar credentials. There was no difference among fathers and childless men.

Any work that shines light on discrimination against any group of workers is valuable. My only concern with the first part of this particular study, which received a prestigous work-family research award, is that the fake resumes of fictional women were reviewed and acted upon by "paid undergraduate volunteers." Sure, some of the undergrads may one day work their way into hiring manager positions, and that's a big concern if they look at mothers negatively when they get there. I think (and hope) you'd get a very different outcome if all of the resumes were placed before seasoned HR professionals, though the second part of the study is truly discouraging. If the women's experience and skill sets were truly similar, a good hiring manager would not see a negative in motherhood. A really good one would see the added value that a parent's perspective can bring to a job.

Still, plenty of research studies have documented a wage gap between mothers and nonmothers. Ann Crittenden, author of "The Price of Motherhood," found for women under the age of 35,
the pay gap between mothers and nonmothers is larger than the pay gap between men and women. So, despite the experimental nature of the research, the results are still unsettlng. Have you felt the effects of a "motherhood penalty"?

Syndication:

From the Community…

Comments 11-20 of 229
  • Miss Independent's Avatar
    Posted by Miss Independent Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:19am PDT

    I agree with most of the posts on here. If I was a hiring manager I would hire the childless woman over the mother anyday. They childless woman will not have to leave work at the drop of a hat for thier child, miss large amounts of days of work, will have more flexibility with thier work hours, vacation time and holidays and thier focus will be on work, not answering the phone everytime thier kid or babysitter calls. As a childless woman, I have gotten work dumped on my desk and had to work extra hours countless times to cover the slack for a mom who had to leave work for a child related event. I think it's only fair that I get paid more and have more consideration for a position, because I am more dedicated to it than a mother would be, because her focus is her children- as it should be.

    Report Abuse
  • Green eyes's Avatar
    Posted by Green eyes Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:21am PDT

    I have totally been in the position to be turned down for a position because I have kids. The messed up part is they told me that was the reason. It doesn't make sense to me because most parents I know are more willing to work because they have someone they need to provide for. I don't miss work much because my kids are sick because my husband helps. I can see this to be a problem for single parents though and they don't really get a choice. Daycares don't take sick kids. Even though you can see a point for the bussines, it's still a form of discrimination.

    Report Abuse
  • ktrp's Avatar
    Posted by ktrp Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:23am PDT

    The study takes it for granted that people should be paid the same, and the reality is they shouldn't.

    My feeling is that society is a long way from adapting to women entering the workforce. It sill has two modes for 'serious' work - full time, 50 hours a week, or not working. I work at a small company, and some of the women here who are mothers work in senior roles, but part time. I think this sort of thing should become more common, more accepted, and companies should be able to make use of it. The reality is, the average childless woman and the average mother of 3 are prepared to put in different volumes of work. That's okay. The problem perhaps, is that companies have no way handling people who want to work 9 hours a day from those that really would rather work 5 hours a day. They are making assumptions which may not always be accurate. If there was more flexibility in work arrangements, mothers who want to work while their kids are in school, mothers who are the primary breadwinner and want to work 9 hours a day and drive up the corporate ladder, single women who want a balance of work and life and hard driving single women could all set up the arrangement that realistically works for them and their employer, and be paid according to that.

    Report Abuse
  • BKM's Avatar
    Posted by BKM Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:23am PDT

    Really, I find this phenomenon quite disturbing because it took me some time to get hired myself after I had my first child. Employers always turn the other eye when they see a mother applying for jobs. This bias should stop really, because these employers also come from a home. I think the problem lies with mothers not been able to work late nights, odd times and the rest. However, I think the rights of Mothers should be protected.

    Report Abuse
  • RupieDupe's Avatar
    Posted by RupieDupe Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:26am PDT

    I'm with Sandy G here. Whether I have children or not has never been on my resume and if brought up in an interview, I'll change the subject to something else or ask why my personal life matters. Would they ask someone if they played online games? Those have caused people to just not show up for work. No, they won't because it's personal. I'll answer questions about how I think I would perform on the job. If they ask if something outside the office would distract me or require me to rush out of the office, maybe i'd say yes if allowed, but i'd take any work with me to do while at home later. Plus mothers usually work faster at their jobs because they want to be able to be there for their kids. So they are getting the same amount of work in, just in a shorter time period.

    Report Abuse
  • Tammy's Avatar
    Posted by Tammy Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:37am PDT

    I do see though that being childless has it's problems as well....with the extra work, or when it is time for layoffs.....the one with kids to support seems to win out sometimes.

    I am with the childless people out there who don't have an automatic excuse for being out (kid's sick). What about the dads out there? Why can't they take a sick day every now and then?

    Report Abuse
  • springtime's Avatar
    Posted by springtime Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:40am PDT

    My cousin is a hospital dialysis care nurse. She has no children. Guess who gets to work Christmas and Thanksgiving? In return, she gets the 4th of July . Not to diminish that holiday by any means, but just because she doesn't have children doesn't mean she doesn't have other family members she would like to share Christmas/Thanksgiving with.

    If I were hiring two women with very similar resumes, I know which I would hire. It would be the one who doesn't have parent teacher conferences, daytime school plays, doctor's appointments, early soccer games, field day events, Take Your Daughter to Work Day, etc.

    Report Abuse
  • lovey's Avatar
    Posted by lovey Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:44am PDT

    For the most part, the employees that i've had that are working mothers take more time off and are less reliable employees than men or other women without children. My job is to hire people that will get their work done, not to mention the animosity it creates between the working mothers and the rest of the employees.

    Report Abuse
  • Susan's Avatar
    Posted by Susan Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:47am PDT

    I totally agree with Lisa and Rowdygirl and other similar comments. If I were a hiring manager I would definately prefer a childfree woman (and I'm a mom!), even though technically you are not allowed to choose based on that of course. The weird thing is, I'm not sure about this study, because they are not allowed to ask things like if you have kids in your interview, and if for some reason the fake applicants volunteered the information, how do they know that is the reason the fake non-moms got hired more than the moms? That's hard to pinpoint or prove. One last point, if a mom had a stay at home husband (or nanny who is always there) who took care of the kids, I wouldn't be hesitant to hire her over a non-mom.

    Report Abuse
  • Nessiedmf's Avatar
    Posted by Nessiedmf Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:04am PDT

    At the risk of being repetitive, it's illegal to ask during an interview whether a person has kids, so this "study" can't reflect how a real employer would hire.

    However, for those people who don't have kids, and are not happy about having to fill in when fellow employees who are parents are missing work, I have good news for you. Employers don't so much notice whether a person is missing due to their own illness or because of their kid's illnesses, they simply notice whether a person is absent or not. If you are present more of the time, and if your work is otherwise equal to those who are absent more often, then you are probably being rewarded monetarily, and even more certainly you are favored when it comes to time for promotions. I can say that both as a person who has gained managerial status in my company, and as an HR manager (I do not have kids, and I've missed work 3 unexpected days in 16 years.)

    There are always many considerations that are factored in when HR considers promoting or giving raises, those being absenteeism, commitment to the job, skills, education, and attitude. Employees have various things in their lives that may interfere with their ability to to excel in all of these areas. Sometimes it's personal medical issues, sometimes it's emotional issues, and sometimes it's family issues which include the duties that a mother might have to take off work for. The distiction that this article suggests is that HR differentiates between these various work distractions. I couldn't disagree more.

    Report Abuse
Comments 11-20 of 229

leave your comment

You must sign in to post a comment

Sign In for personalized information

New User? Sign Up

Updates Chatter on Shine…

manage your life byte

from Target

All kinds of wonderful. Gifts, solutions and savings all in one place. Find every merry solution at Target.