|
Research Finds ‘Motherhood Penalty’ in Employment Process
written by Steve Bates
Women with children are at a significant disadvantage compared to women without children—and compared to just about everybody else—in the hiring process, a new research paper shows.
Written by two Cornell University Department of Sociology researchers, the paper, Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?, found that mothers were largely perceived as less committed to their jobs than childless women by both men and women who evaluated job applications. In addition, the research found that fathers were considered or expected to be more committed to their jobs than men without children.
The paper, which was presented Aug. 15 at the American Sociological Association’s 100th annual meeting in Philadelphia, was written by professors Shelley J. Correll and Stephen Benard. The researchers found not only that mothers are less likely to be hired, but also that they are offered lower salaries than childless women.
Substantial research has established a gender gap between men and women, though studies suggest that the gap has narrowed somewhat in recent years. Research and anecdotal evidence have established that many businesses have a “glass ceiling” preventing women from advancing to top positions.
The paper by Correll and Benard shows a substantial disadvantage for mothers compared with childless women—a gap of about $11,000 in starting salary, for example. And it notes that male and female job applicant evaluators were equally biased against women with children.
“People most likely unconsciously expect that mothers are going to be less committed to their jobs,” Correll told HR News. However, she added, that does not excuse bias in hiring, pay or promotions.
“I was surprised by the magnitude of some of the things that we saw,” she added.
The researchers based their findings on an experiment. Eighty-four men and 108 women, all Cornell undergraduates, were read a description of a company that was purportedly hiring for a mid-level marketing position. They examined application materials for two applicants who differed on parental status but were otherwise indistinguishable. All applicants had strong resumes with high success in their previous jobs.
Evaluators were surveyed and asked to list pros and cons for each applicant and to rate their expected competence and commitment. Then a memo was added to one of the profiles mentioning that the applicant was a mother of two children and that she was active in a parent-teacher association. The second applicant’s profile had no mention of children. The evaluators said they would hire 84 percent of the women without children but only 47 percent of the mothers.
In fact, the more children a woman was shown to have, the lower the salary that the resume evaluators would offer.
“Women who have children are held to a harsher performance standard than women who do not,” Correll said. “We’re not saying employers discriminate against mothers because they don’t like them,” she said. “Motherhood is a role held in very high esteem in our society.”
However, the study indicates that motherhood and career are viewed as largely incompatible, while fatherhood and career are not. The fatherhood bonus was unexpected, Correll said. “There’s that breadwinner stereotype,” she conceded.
She said the results were particularly surprising considering that the application evaluators were young and grew up with working mothers and fathers.
Correll said she plans to repeat the experiment using actual hiring managers and adding a description to the mythical company with the job opening as having good work/life programs.
What can be done about the apparent bias? Making people aware of it can help, she said. “Bias goes down appreciably when people are cognizant of what they’re doing.”
Meanwhile, women applying for jobs “might not want to indicate that they have children,” Correll said. But, more often than not, “it comes out” during the interview process, she noted.
Steve Bates is managing editor of HR News.
[Return to top]
|