A recent study by two sociologists at Cornell University has uncovered an interesting aspect of hiring decisions. Women with children -- mothers -- don't compete for jobs as well as men with children -- fathers -- or childless men and women.
That's no great surprise. The choices women make at work are often more nuanced than those faced by men. But what is intriguing is how the rest of the folks shook out.
Mothers scored lower than everyone else. Mothers were ranked as less competent and committed and least likely to be promoted. And they were offered lower starting salaries.Interestingly, the students ranked women without children as the most qualified on several measures, giving them the highest scores for commitment, competence and likelihood of promotion. Even so, childless women weren't offered the highest starting salaries. Those went to fathers, who also were rated as most likely to be promoted. Childless men didn't fare as well. They beat mothers on most measures but fell behind childless women on every measure but one.
That leaves us with:
How do you begin to make sense of that?
Related Stories: | Topics:Management, women in business, Cornell University, Business, Jobs and Labor, Employee Compensation |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 5 Total
July 14, 2005 at 4:02pm by John
Here's what I think:
Fathers are seen as breadwinners, and most in need of money and opportunity.
Childless women are seen (perhaps unconsciously) as forgoing motherhood in favor of a career, which makes them interested in money and opportunity.
Childless men may be seen as hard workers, but don't have the incentive (wife, children) to work hard, or the need for money and opportunity.
Mothers are seen as being divided between work and home.
This may not apply in all cases, of course. And it may not be fair. But it might make sense that, as people, we make decisions based on more "base" facts, espescially if we don't know about their competence.
July 15, 2005 at 2:48am by Karole
I don't think this study proves anything - they used students to make the "hiring" decisions. Presumably the students have very little experience with executives at the level of the candidates they were asked to assess and probaby very little experience in assessing competency or abilities of marketing executives let alone having worked with people who are effective managers and are parents as well. To me, all this study does is show the bais of students toward the groups represented by the fake resumes. The reality is that the majority of the population have children and probably a significant proportion of the workforce do as wella. We can't all be being paid less.
July 15, 2005 at 7:47am by Single White Male
Consequences after child support violations may motivate many unmarried fathers. Married fathers probably get more homelife cooperation underneath the delegated dictation of mother's can of whupass. Fathers can't co-lead so supportively since Child Protection Services are diversely informed. No category of production or underpayment compares to the under-supported mother guardian who is also devoutly religious.
July 15, 2005 at 10:44am by snd
maybe the students just didn't want to hire their mothers.
or maybe the students had mothers who were not so wonderful at the house because they were taken over by their jobs.