Maintaining visibility and identity within the organization during Maternity (& Paternity) Leave

By Lynne J Millward Purvis and Shane Crabb
Work & Organizational Psychology Research Group, Department of Psychology, School of Human Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7HX l.purvis@surrey.ac.uk

First published in Maternity Matters, Managing Maternity's newsletter, in July 2007

The Work and Families Act 2006 heralds a refreshing change in maternity law that, among other things, affords a new mother (as of 1 April 07) the option to actively ‘keep in touch’ with her employer without foregoing her maternity leave. If she wishes, she can also go into work for up to 10 days. Employers will now also be entitled to make “reasonable contact” with employees during this leave period (see Ashley, 2007 for further details).

With 45% of the labour force comprising women (EOC, 2006), practically every organization will, at some stage, employ women who are, or will become mothers. Ensuring that these women return to work after childbirth is of political and economic concern, particularly if an organization has invested strongly in employee training and development (e.g., CBI, 2004; WEU[DTI], 2004). Nowadays almost two-thirds of women are economically active again within nine months of childbirth (Labour Force Survey, 2004). From a ‘Labour Capital’ perspective, this statistic can be accounted for by a combination of both opportunities (in particular, pay protected maternity leave) and costs (in particular, the cost of skill depletion in today’s economic climate).

Of those who do return to work, clearly, not all mothers will be able or willing to work during their maternity leave. Some may intend to return to work, but on reflection change their mind (Houston & Marks, 2003); others may luxuriate in the opportunity they have to be a full-time mum for a short period (Hakim, 2002). Others may on the contrary be highly motivated to ‘stay in the loop’ rather than risk incurring discontinuity penalties to their career or reputation (Joshi, Paci, Waldfogel, 1998; Waldfogel, 1998). Until now however, any form of visible participation in work during the official maternity period would forfeit all remaining leave entitlement. To maintain continuity, women who have hard-earned experience, skills and reputation might be somewhat compelled to return to work sooner than they might prefer (e.g., Blau, Ferber, & Winkler, 1998). As succinctly put by one of my colleagues reflecting on her own current maternity leave, “I can’t just switch off and on from work like a tap” (MacDowall, 2007).

In this article we argue that the opportunity for both employee and employer to maintain contact during the maternity period could be mutually beneficial. However, the benefit is likely to depend on whether ‘contact’ is actively managed and part of a longer process of managing the transition to motherhood in an organizational context, from pregnancy to return and beyond. We conclude with recommendations for how the organization might evolve a framework for managing the transition process including ‘reasonable contact’ for mutual gain. Recommendations might also be extended to fathers.

Our case is defended with reference to two pivotal studies of transition to motherhood in an organizational setting, one from the perspective of the mother and one from the perspective of other employees, covering the leave period. In the first set of interviews, eight women in professional or managerial jobs were interviewed during pregnancy and then post-childbirth back in the workplace after their statutory leave period (Millward, 2006). The second set of interviews involved talking to six employees covering for the absence of a boss on maternity leave (Millward & Vaghela, 2007).

Both studies were informed by a psychological approach to investigation called ‘interpretative phenomenological analysis’ (Smith, 1997; 2003; 2004). This involves looking at how individuals make sense of their experiences, particularly experiences of change that challenge existing ways of thinking, feeling and behaving. The focus of analysis was to identify the meanings used by employees to make sense of the maternal situation. 

Our first study revealed how progressively disengaged women felt from their jobs and their organization from the moment of maternal announcement. As these women became increasingly visible as mothers-to-be they became correspondingly invisible as viable employees. Whilst the imperative on organizations is to organise suitable cover for their pending absence, the way this was handled in relation to the women we interviewed (e.g., reshuffled responsibilities, exclusion from planning meetings), alienated them from their jobs and created uncertainty about their future in the organization. Coupled with this, women felt under heightened pressure to continue fulfilling performance expectations despite their pregnancy.

Notwithstanding their strong commitment to work, all but one of the women we interviewed also experienced return dilemmas arising from anxiety about being a ‘good mother’. They benchmarked themselves against female friends who had opted for full-time motherhood. On return to work, their key issue was to re-establish themselves as both viable employees and mothers. However they had to reckon with perceptions of colleagues’ implicit doubts about their continued job or organizational commitment, changes in job responsibility, and the practicalities of juggling the new reality of work and family life. On top of this, many also felt guilty about neglecting their maternal responsibilities.

One woman said she felt that her “professional aspirations were now in question” if not her productivity or commitment. Others felt very disconcerted by constant enquiries about how they were coping, fielding “patronizing comments” such as “I bet you come to work for a rest now don’t you?” and “I don’t know how you manage to get anything done with so little sleep”. For one in particular this created feelings of being…”tested”…”as if people are waiting for you to somehow, crack up under the pressure”. 

Women who felt that their new needs were ignored or not actively acknowledged by others, appeared to cope with this by re-aligning themselves as primarily ‘mothers who work’, rather than truly reconciled and valued employees with openly appreciated maternal responsibilities. Thus feelings of disillusionment during efforts to reintegrate on new psychological terms led to some withdrawal of organizational investment on the part of some new mothers.

Such is the experience of women as a consequence of a largely ‘unmanaged’ maternal transition process. All women indicated that they would have liked an opportunity to retain a sense of ownership and responsibility for ‘covering their own job’ and a sense of continuity of organizational membership during their leave period. Instead the discontinuity and disengagement they experienced, seriously undermined their sense of identity and organizational belonging.

Our second study highlights further difficulties for an organization seeking to act as a respectful party to the transition process for new mothers in the workplace. The findings emerging from this study reveal that junior employees called to ‘act up’ to cover for maternity leave may perceive this as an opportunity to progress themselves in the organization in ways that can potentially disengage and exclude the woman further from her previous role.

One employee we interviewed was determined to prove herself in the absence of her boss, as more economically viable. In her words “I’ve already got in mind what I’m going to change and I’m slowly but surely implementing bits and pieces now [while her expectant boss is still there] and it’s going to improve the [job] for the better”….“it’s not in their interests to have her back because obviously, I’m…economically better because I’m full-time, and she can only be part-time, but they have to keep her job open because it’s the law”.

In reflecting on the idea that her boss might maintain some work connection during her leave, this same employee said “Dear Lord, I hope not” followed by “I’m hoping that I won’t have to use her while she’s away” so that “I can put a personal stamp on the job”. Finally, when reflecting on the full return of her boss she said …“I will be concerned as to how much the [job] means to her on a day-to-day basis”…”but by law the job has to stay open”. These findings yield some profoundly disturbing insights into what women might have to cope with in their transition to motherhood in an organizational setting.

One concern with the legislation is that the ‘keeping in touch’ opportunities will be disconnected from the transition process as a whole and loaded on the individual woman to organize rather than being constructively managed by both individual and organization. If, after a pre-birth period of feeling excluded from work, a woman – pending her formal return – faces a poor reception at work she could actually end up feeling worse. If her offers of help are openly declined or rejected, if she encounters even an inkling of hostility or threat from those covering for her absence, her predisposition to feel excluded and disengaged could be seriously exacerbated (Halpert &  Burg, 1997).

In our view, someone named and who is closely minded of the potential for female marginalization before, during and also on return from maternity leave must take responsibility for managing not only the leave period, but the entire transition process.  There is only so much the woman herself should and can do to maintain her own integrity as an employee in relation to her job and her employing organization: it is necessarily a two-way ‘psychological’ process as much as a legal economic one (Herriot, Hirsch & Reilly, 1998; Millward, 2006).

One means of actively managing the transition and re-integration process is to facilitate an open discussion about mutual expectations. This would need to happen during pregnancy and then again on return. Ongoing support will also be required at the interface between pregnancy, leave, and return. This may involve looking closely at the dynamics within the local team, and discussing the role expectations and boundaries of responsibility and opportunity for all those involved in covering for a woman’s absence. It would not be fair on those ‘acting up’ to then also be ‘pulled down’ without openly addressing their own career needs and goals. Like Miller, Jablin, Casey and Lamphear-Van-Horn (1996) we argue thus for a broader stance on maternity leave as both a contractual (legal) and interpersonal process of negotiating role expectations, of the expectant and returning mother, and of those covering for her absence.

Women need to be managed however not just as ‘expectant mothers’ or ‘new mothers’ but as also having uniquely different needs and concerns (see also Borrill & Kidd, 1994). Whilst our findings pertain to women who are relatively highly educated professionals in skilled jobs, with careers, the principles are transferable across all women who wish to retain some continuity of membership in their employing organization. In practice, this will involve a highly case sensitive approach to managing maternity (Herriot, 2000). Further, organizations may also need to examine the extent to which, through their local personnel practices, they demonstrate respect for an employee’s needs to balance work and family commitments, the extent to which employees experience career-derailing consequences for utilizing work-family benefits, and the extent to which organizational time demands and expectations might be unreasonable in light of employees’ (both men and women) efforts to lead a balanced life (Thompson, Beauvais & Lyness, 1999).

Considering the father’s requirements as well as those of the mother is also necessary within the new legislation. To date, the male experience of becoming a father in an organizational context is a highly neglected consideration. Our research however demonstrates that the same feelings of discontinuity and disengagement can arise for them during their leave period in relation to both their job and organization (Crabb & Millward, 2007). As one new father put it “I was starting to get niggling feelings about getting out of the loop with work”… “And there were a couple of times I got a little bit frustrated with thinking ‘oh my God how am I gonna pick this back up again?’”. Once things “were under control at home…I was looking forward to going back to work”.

For males, the central issue arising commonly appeared to be more about the importance of maintaining or re-claiming a personal sense of work efficacy both during and after their period of leave. On returning to work, the same father said “I made a deliberate effort to make sure that I was firing on all four cylinders. When I got back into the office and I got quite involved in certain things…”. In hindsight he reflects, “when you’re out of the loop, you start getting doubts about…what value am I adding…it was more simply coming back and really starting to add value again”.

It is also noteworthy that three of the four men interviewed refused to even take their statutory paternity leave. This, we believe, is because they had a strong sense of identity as ‘provider’. As one father stated “I personally feel I have an obligation to continue as normal, because this family still needs somebody coming on, continuing to earn money”.  Such attitudes among working fathers-to-be have clear implications with regard to how paternity policies should be handled within the greater societal context.

Overall, the findings suggest that despite legal advances, women in the current study appeared to struggle psychologically with the reconciliation of motherhood and work. Our study of those covering for maternity induced absence, suggests that they may also harbour issues surrounding return that could exacerbate this reconciliation difficulty. Further legal advances require even more that organizations systematically reckon with the transition process and its inextricable link with work readjustment and organizational re-integration. New fathers are also an important consideration in this respect. The legal changes are one step in the right direction, but they must be actively managed within a wider, more long-term context of transition to ensure that they make a constructive difference for the returning mother.

Bibliography

Ashley, J. (2007). Changes to family friendly provisions – the effect of the Work and Families Act 2006. Maternity Matters. Managing Maternity, March. http://www.managingmaternity.co.uk/news/news0501.htm
Blau, F. D., Ferber, M. A., & Winkler, A. E. (1998). The economics of women, men, and work (3rd ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Borrill, C., and Kidd, J. (1994). New parents at work: Jobs, families and the psychological contract. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22 (2): 219-231
CBI (2004). Pregnant and Productive – Investigating the treatment of pregnant women at work.  Consultation by the Equal Opportunities Commission, Confederation of British Industry Response. www.cbi/org.uk
Crabb, S., & Millward, L.J. (2007). Father’s experiences of paternity life: before and after child-birth in an organizational context. Manuscript in preparation. University of Surrey.
EOC (2006). Pregnancy Discrimination at Work.  Equal Opportunities Commission. www.eoc.org.uk/
Hakim, C. (2002). Lifestyle Preferences as Determinants of Women's Differentiated Labour Market Careers.' Work and Occupations 29, November. 428-459.
Halpert, J. A., and Burg, J. H. (1997). Mixed messages: Co-worker responses to the pregnant employee, Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 241-253
Herriot, P. (2000). The Employment Relationship. London: Routledge.
Herriot, P., Hirsch, W., & Reilly, P. (1998). Trust and Transition: Managing Today’s Employment Relationship. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Houston, D.M. & Marks, G. (2003) The Role of Planning and Workplace Support in Returning to Work after Maternity Leave. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41, 197-214.
Joshi, H., Paci, P., Waldfogel, J. (1998). What do we know about unequal pay? In H. Joshi and P.Paci (Eds.), Unequal Pay. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Labour Force Survey (2004). Office of National Statistics. www.statistics.gov.uk/
MacDowall, A. (2007). Juggling or balance in work and family life. Memorandum of The Psychologist, June Issue.
Miller, V., Jablin, F., Casey, M., Lamphear, Van-Horn, M. (1996). Journal of Managerial Issues, 8(3), 286-309
Millward, L.J., & Vaghela, A. (2007). Employees covering for maternity leave: personal opportunity or loss? Manuscript in preparation. University of Surrey.
Millward, L.J. (2006). The transition to motherhood in an organizational context: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 79, 315-333
Smith, J.A. (1997). Developing theories from case studies: self-reconstruction and the transition to motherhood. In N. Hayes (ed.), Doing qualitative analysis in psychology. Hove: Psychology Press.
Smith, J.A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 39-54
Smith, JA and Osborn, M (2003) Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In JA Smith (ed) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Methods. London: Sage.(pp 51-80)
Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L., & Lyness, K.S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: the influence of work family culture on benefit utilisation, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 54, 392-425
Waldfogel, J. (1998). The family gap for young women in the United States and Britain: can maternity leave make a difference? Journal of Labour Economics, 16, 505-545
WEU (DTI) (2004). Changing Worlds – Changing Lives: Women in the UK since 1999. http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/
research/CEDAW_report5.pdf

Editor’s note:

Managing Maternity Ltd. welcomes this contribution to the evidence base regarding improving the organisation’s and mother's experience during maternity and on return to work. 

Managing Maternity's Pre-Maternity Leave Review structure encourages the communication advocated in this paper, particularly when followed up on return. To find out more, contact us

Enquiries regarding the research itself should be directed to Lynn Millward Purvis: l.purvis@surrey.ac.uk