Do women derail their own careers?

Commentary:

(MoneyWatch) Why aren't there more women in high places? The Economist is asking if women derail their own careers. (You can vote in the survey.) Right now, the poll is running at 64 percent who say "yes" and 36 percent saying "no."

The impetus for the poll is the new Sheryl Sandberg book that claims that women need to do more for their own careers by, among other things, applying for jobs they are unqualified for, as men do. I'm not disagreeing that men and women operate differently in the workplace. As a general rule, we're different. But does this difference as it expresses itself in the workplace a problem?

• Survey sheds new light on male bosses and trust
• Why I hate Salary.com's "What's a Mom Worth" survey
• Does telecommuting hurt your career?

Before we address that question, let's note the inherent bias in the question of whether women "derail" their own careers. When a train derails, it falls off the track. It's not derailment if the train switches tracks. So the wording of that question implies that women want to be on the track to the corner office and that they somehow fell or were pushed off the track. When a train derails, it doesn't just leisurely or purposely wander off the track. It's generally a violent and scary thing. Last year a tram (smaller and not as fast as a train) derailed close to our house. It jumped off the track and smashed into a nearby house. It was loud and disruptive and downright dangerous. While no one was killed, several had to be treated for injuries. Tram service was stopped for more than a week and because of the derailment those of us who relied on that tram were thrown into travel turmoil.

That, my friends, is a derailment.

And does that happen to careers? Yes. Sometimes there are spectacular derailments. I received an email last week from a woman questioning if she'd been fired properly because all she'd done is use her work email to send nude photos of herself. (Answer: Yes.) Other derailments are forced on people -- men and women both. Public firings. Major projects that go belly up in a bad, bad way. And then there are those mean managers who do everything in their power to destroy careers.

Those are derailments.

When a woman decides that she'd rather work fewer hours in exchange for more time with her children, that's not a derailment -- it's a track change. When a woman decides that flexibility is more important than a bonus check, that's not a derailment.

Now, we can moan that if only the U.S. had more maternity leave and better protections for working women, life would be just lovely. Sure, longer maternity leaves are nice, but even with job protections they come at a cost. If you take three, six or 12 months off work, you may not be as knowledgeable or sharp as the people who worked during that time. I'm not saying that employees suddenly lose their value when they take extended time off, only that there is a real consequence to it.

Yahoo's Melissa Mayer took two weeks off with her baby. Former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift's maternity leave was counted in hours (chairing a meeting over the phone from her hospital bed) rather than months. Swift, in fact said about Mayer:

Marissa Mayer (like me) is not likely to emerge as a role model for everyday working parenthood. Her experience will in no way mirror the vast majority of mothers and fathers struggling to make ends meet and raise healthy, responsible kids.

Swift is right. These books and public hand wringing about women in the workforce reflect only a very small percentage of women. Most women don't want to be CEO, or governor or work 80 hour weeks. And when you want something different, you're very likely to choose another track. It's a deliberate track change, not a derailment. So, do I think women derail their own careers? Not most of us. We just change tracks.

[JenniferMcKeough]

I wonder how many women were googling this while at work today?

[rpmt]

@warriorhearted, @grannybunny, I think this is what is known as "missing the point entirely." People only have 24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week. Most of us need a fair amount of sleep to stay sane. And a newborn baby requires a LOT of energy and attention. At the very least, a woman needs to take a few days off to give birth. That in itself might not be "derailing" or "realigning"...

... but does it ever really stop there?

Do new parents really intend to start leaving their kid in the nursery from age 3? Are they going to let him/her subsist on nothing but formula? That can pose a significant health risk to the baby. (Don't believe me: check the WHO, an organization which no one will accuse of harboring a Right-Wing Agenda.)

Every hour one spends on one kids is one hour one cannot spend at the office. Like it or not, that's how it is.

Once in a while you'll get a Sheryl Sandberg, a Melissa Mayer or a Jane Swift, who can seemingly "have it all." These are not ordinary folk, as Swift herself has hinted. They are at the top of the chain. They are elites, that narrow fraction of a percentage that exists and indeed must exist in every society. Such people can "have it all" because they are privileged, and it is highly unlikely that the vast majority of humans will ever be so privileged.

The rest of us have to prioritize and make sacrifices. That's life!

[WarriorHearted]

I wonder why ...why cant women have best of everything i.e. Be a career women and mother. Why do we need to change tracks? Although I love and want to spend more time with my baby, I dont want to change tracks in my career.
But Alas like companies dont get it. They immediately put you on mommy track whether you like it or not. We ask for more but you by then you are derailed and struggle hard to get on board.

[ingoodcompany]

When I read, "...Swift's maternity leave was counted in hours." it gave me an eerie flashback to accounts of the woman plantation slave's work life, wherein, as one account of it holds, "Women field workers worked the same hours as men. Pregnant women were expected to work until the child was born, and after the child's birth the woman worked in the field with the child on her back."

Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0215086/dailylife.htm

It appears that the rule remains that there is no qualifier in equality when it comes to the workforce, not 400 years ago, not today.

[gabi532]

I simply think as females our priorities change. Many simply CREATE THEIR OWN Opportunities. Sometimes climbing the corporate ladder is not all it is cracked up to be...

[Grannybunny]

More women are involuntarily "derailed" -- that is, automatically relegated to "the mommy track" by those who see motherhood as inconsistent with career advancement -- than voluntary choose to simply switch tracks. The double standard is alive and sick.