Is flexibility for mothers more important that flexibility for other workers?
Lately I get asked a lot about pushback. As in, firms say to me, “what do I do about pushback where the non-mum demographic (i.e. men with or without children and women without children) say that they need flexibility too?”
My answer takes some time to explain. Firstly, I believe that everyone should have access to flexible work, and that organisations should pursue flexible outcomes for all. And they should recognise that men, and women without children, also face hurdles when it comes to flexibility.
But, for me, flexible roles for mothers takes precedence, and here’s why. Fewer women than men participate in the labour market. Most recent figures show that 71 per cent of working age men are in the labour market compared to 59 per cent of women. For me, that disparity results in a number of things, but primarily in putting women at an economic disadvantage, which shows through most directly in superannuation balances, but also means that women are more likely than men to experience poverty (although there are a whole host of other reasons that also contribute to this).
Women enter the labour force at the same rate as men when they are young, but then from the age of 28 they start to fall out of the market. Census figures don’t track whether these women are having children or not, but I think that the age and the magnitude of the fall points to it being related to motherhood. While women return into the market at a later stage, they never return at the same rate—hence the participation gap.
For me, flexibility in the workforce for women is about addressing this gap. It has a political and economic aim which I would argue is different to the reasons that we might pursue more widespread flexibility.
There is a strong argument that getting flexibility for fathers is also important, as it frees them up to take on more of the childcare responsibilities. This is absolutely true, but I would argue that this has less of a direct relation to female participation than ensuring that mothers have access to flexible roles.
So that’s why I do what I do. But I also think it’s great to see the emergence of flexible work platforms that are for everyone—and if anyone wants to set up ProfessionalDads then let me know, I’d be happy to help.
It’s also important to point out that the roles I highlight aren’t exclusively targeted at women; my aim is just to bring flexible roles to the attention of more women. With that in mind I’m delighted to see firms like Clayton Utz obviously keep asking the question of hiring partners “could this role be flexible?” and hear “yes” more often. This week they have 2 real estate roles in Sydney and both of them are flexible and can be done in 4 days. One is for a lawyer with at least 5 years experience and the other is for a more junior lawyer with 2-4 years experience.
There is no doubt that boutique organisations can offer significant flexibility and we can see this this week with Orchard Consulting, a boutique IT consulting firm in Melbourne, looking for a 2-3 days a week business analyst where some of the work can be done at home.
Accenture is a partner with Women’s Agenda’s Select Employer and it has a 3-days a week (Tues/Wed/Thurs) role for an executive assistant in Sydney.
Happy flexible job hunting!