Facing Rejection After Maternity Leave or Marriage: How Can We Change This Bias in Recruitment?

Hi!

I'm a recruitment consultant. Recently, I came across some good quality profiles of females for positions in corporates. However, they were rejected solely because they have stopped working for the past 4-5 months due to either being on maternity leave or having recently gotten married.

I believe there needs to be a change in this regard in the private sector as government employees do not face this issue. What about those in the private sector?

I would appreciate your suggestions.

Regards,
Priyanka

Dear Priyanka,

Appreciate your concern about employment bias with women!

In the private sector, it is a mindset block that employing a female can lead to many uncertain causes for absence.

What I feel is we should make these things clear during the selection process itself... Now, how to go about it... Maybe...

1) Understand from your business if a sudden break of an employee (due to maternity/marriage/unwell/home-related issues) would cause a lot of damage to work. If yes, do you have any standby or replacement arrangement for that duration?

2) During the interview process, understand clearly about the future plans of the person... if she's planning to get married (by age)... or if she's planning to start her family? A lot of cross-questioning and dwelling help in this case!

I am sure a proper selection process can help us avoid these situations... and in any case... it is a natural process that no one can stop 😊... but can always be planned and informed in advance!

Do revert if your views differ from this.

Thanks,

Nupur

Hi all,

Priyanka: Thanks for posing a very relevant question that organizations are facing in today's times.

Nupur: Thank you for your valuable comments. By the way, welcome to Citehr.com! We all hope to learn from your experiences and comments.

Would like to share my views on this:

Q. Recently, I came across some high-quality profiles of females for certain corporate positions, but they were rejected simply because they had stopped working for the last 4-5 months due to either being on maternity leave or having recently gotten married.

What I feel is that we should make these factors clear during the selection process itself. Now, how to go about it... maybe:

1) Understand from your business if a sudden break by an employee (due to maternity/marriage/illness/family issues) would cause significant work disruption. If yes, do you have any standby or replacement arrangements for that duration?

2) During the interview process, clearly understand the future plans of the individual—whether she is planning to get married (by age) or start a family. Thorough questioning and discussion can help in this case.

I am confident that a proper selection process can help us avoid these situations. In any case, it is a natural process that cannot be stopped but can always be planned and communicated in advance!

A: Let's all understand one thing - the female workforce in the corporate world, especially in India, is becoming a valuable resource, and a significant change in attitudes is required from all of us in HR.

I engage extensively with students on B-school campuses while conducting workshops on Business Creativity. What I have realized is that girls are often more creative and have higher problem-solving abilities than boys. This bodes well for our country as they will be tomorrow's leaders.

Now, when it comes to issues like marriage and family, we as HR professionals need to show empathy and understanding, regardless of any objections from top management or division heads. I ask all of you - wouldn't your wife or sister someday plan to get married or start a family?

I'd like to share my experience in this matter:

We interviewed a young woman with two years of experience and found her to be highly competent. When the Marketing Head inquired about her marriage plans, she mentioned that her parents were looking for a suitable groom for her.

After the interview, the Marketing Head was hesitant to hire her as he believed she wouldn't stay long due to marriage. My question is this - she was honest about her plans, and she could have easily lied. Let's focus on competency and hire her.

Despite the Marketing Head's concerns, she was recruited. We were transparent with her about our reservations, which she appreciated. She became one of the top performers and eventually got married but continued working with us in the same city.

My point is, if we show understanding, empathy, and create a supportive work environment in terms of work-life balance, maternity leave, medical benefits, etc., then these issues become less significant, enabling employees to contribute more effectively to the company's success.

Cheerio,

Rajat

Priyanka,

As a recruitment consultant, you have an important role to play in the hiring process of your client. If you believe a candidate deserves attention due to her background and experience, you should present a case to the hiring manager regarding her suitability for the job. Do not accept a straight "no." If we, as HR professionals, experience such a mental block, we need education, and you could effectively play that part.

I consider this a serious form of discrimination, and I am very surprised to hear that you continue to observe a pattern, especially from many companies. I believe it is crucial for us to examine best practices from around the world in this context and develop our perspectives and processes accordingly.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Best regards

Dear Colleagues,

As one or two of us have mentioned earlier, it is always better to benchmark with best practices around the world. It is a natural phenomenon that a person of the female gender would someday, if she chooses, get married. Hence, when documents are written giving conditions of maternity or marriage, I think we as HR Practitioners should try as much as possible to give room for relief officers for such female employees who have shown capabilities of hard work.

This, if not nipped in the bud, could be seen as discrimination on the grounds of gender and even marital status. While some global corporations are forward-looking, even creating creches at the workplace, some are still busy frustrating young women from getting pregnant within the first two years of their marriage!!! HR Practitioners around the globe should start networking in an effort to put an end to such conditions of service or contract in letters of appointment given to female employees.

Thanks

Hi, I appreciate the reply given by Rajat. It is true that honesty has to be respected.

Also, we could look at it from a different angle. If the company appoints a woman with a gap in her profile due to marriage or maternity, they can be assured that she would not take long breaks again as she is settled in her personal life. This should work as a positive factor, as there are fewer chances that she will take a long break.

However, it is also important for women not to take advantage of this fact.

Regards,
Soumya Shankar

Hi friends,

I do agree with some of the points discussed. But to bring to your kind notice, now the trend seems to have changed to a maximum extent. In my own company, I have a software developer who is good in her area of work and is indispensable. She recently got married and is presently going to take maternity leave. The management was advised to have a back-up, especially for the time she would be off. The HR department did the needful. However, in the meantime, she developed some complications that women normally face during pregnancy; hence, she was asked not to travel. The HR had to come up with a solution for this immediately. We set up a computer at her house, took care of the internet connection, and other related matters. Currently, she is serving us from her home. She is online for the whole day for the clients, and the assistant who joined as a back-up is also working simultaneously to cover her absence in the future.

I feel ultimately technology has the answer to most of the discrimination, but it is up to the management to accept the changes.

Any comments are welcome.

Regards,

Srividya

Dear friends, namaskar.

In the public sector, married or not, a woman can get maternity leave. Still, jobs like military and police are less represented by women. Being a woman has its limitations in certain spheres, so feminist rules are not enough to bring parity between men and women in every sphere of life.

In the corporate sector, the goal is to achieve reasonable profit through the contribution of the workforce. Can a company afford to pay for no work for an extended period? The possibility seems remote.

This is a natural challenge for both the corporate employer and a female employee. Under the circumstances, the female employee may choose to remain single and stay in the job or may opt for matrimony. This decision is a challenging individual one. The situation would certainly be happier if it could be made more humane, but that also appears remote.

Regards, Jogeshwar

It is interesting to see the differences in practice across different countries.

In Australia, it is ILLEGAL to discriminate on the grounds of marital status or pregnancy (as well as on the grounds of gender, disability, age, religion, race, nationality, etc).

If an employer so much as asked a woman if she was going to get married or have children, she would have every legal right to lodge a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission, and it is likely the employer would have to pay her compensation!

Not only that, but in May 2005, women in the South Australian Public sector were granted up to 12 weeks of PAID maternity and adoption leave. They can continue to take unpaid leave after this for up to 1 year, and then have another 2 years of unpaid "parenting" leave. The employer must guarantee the woman a "right of return" to her own job at the conclusion of maternity or parenting leave.

When a woman has 2 or more children close together, they can be on leave for years and still have a job to return to!

Hi all,

Varied views. Very informative. I would like to add something favoring Soumya's post. Very recently, I was reading an article on Telecommuting and I posted it here a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, there have been no replies and very few views. Guys, it's always good to accept new things and encourage others, so that many will continue to post new articles instead of rehashing the same old topics.

Okay, back to Telecommuting. It's nothing but the remote working of an employee from home or outside the office, instead of traveling to the office every day. As Soumya mentioned, providing the necessary hardware and internet connection at home for women in maternity/marriage, etc., would be the best solution for not discriminating against women and enhancing the overall work output.

Suggestions, please.

Regards
:D :D :D

Dear Sowmya,

I fully agree with your views and appreciate the steps your company has taken. As an HR professional, we have to consider the ways and means to retain employees irrespective of gender. I know (don't want to mention the name) a company in Chennai that has done the same. Nowadays, a lot of housewives have started working in the BPO sector, and if we appreciate the same in the IT sector, then we can retain employees. However, it may be challenging to convince top management, and at times, it may reflect on us (HR) as well. Nevertheless, we must consistently present our views.

Good topic and discussion.

Bye :)

Hi,

It's really good what you did at your work. I think in the interview process, both sides should have a transparent discussion. This will enable planning for the future goals of the company as well as the personal goals of individuals. Thanks.

Shravan

Hi Rajat,

"Appreciation,"

Thanks for the wonderful thought on the subject. However, based on my work experience, I have found that most organizations provide maternity/marriage leaves as per the Government Act. I believe this is only applicable to a small sector that may face these kinds of problems.

Murali
9448337619

Hi Rajat,

That was a good read! Just a few thoughts to add on. We have found in our organization that having a healthy ratio of women brings about a certain degree of professionalism and a cultured approach to business. (As my ex-boss used to say, "You want to make the work environment more cultured, bring in more women.") Also, our analysis shows that their loyalty and motivation levels are much higher. Women usually leave for marriage/maternity reasons and rarely for money/career. It is pretty rare to see a woman put in her papers without giving it an honest shot and before at least a 6-month period is up. My point is this: If one were to recruit two candidates of similar ages but of the opposite sex, in the absence of personal encumbrances, the lady has double the chance of staying and succeeding. So, are we saying that hiring women increases attrition?

Cheers,
Raaj

Dear All,

This is indeed a very interesting article.

My HR education has been Australian-based, so I am in total agreement with the EEO that there cannot be biases in the selection of a job unless it's in direct conflict with the job requirements, like selecting an 80-year-old woman to play the role of a 16-year-old teenager, no matter what the 80-year-old's experience is. 😊 I am saying this because what I want to share may appear to be in total disagreement.

This is also another part of HR that stinks to the bone. I tip my hat to some of your companies that are willing to increase company costs to accommodate members who are on maternity leave and to make backups to facilitate their absence.

Many companies are facing uncertainty, and a majority of companies are unable to take on such a burden. I have come across Managers commenting, "I would love to take her on, but I cannot take the risk of her being absent and increasing costs just for her replacement when I can remove this risk by hiring someone more reliable."

Especially in times like this when we cannot afford any form of disruption to operations or efficiency, will Managers and HR professionals safely say we must strictly observe EEO standards? More so in corporate companies where politics are equal to any Parliament's seating.

Sometimes, HR practitioners are asked to hire conforming people and second-best candidates just because they stay longer. How do we proceed? With such a culture, even if we bring in the top applicants, can they stay long, or will it be a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I totally agree that times must change and see women as assets to be invested in. The question is, are companies in Asia ready to invest? We are still stuck in a paradigm where women are needed as homemakers.

Just a thought.

Regards

Dear Priyanka,

I have gone through the views of all members. It seems that we have developed an inclination towards females. In some countries, it is protected by the law of the land that you cannot raise questions on gender. In other countries, laws are in place to protect and provide benefits to females, especially in the case of maternity. I agree this inclination is not a baseless matter. Lots and lots of matters are dependent on females. Without males or females, this universe is not going to survive. Both are equally important.

But when it comes to the employer-employee relationship, I have seen even female employers consider this aspect of a long-term relationship without a break. It is natural. Normally, a female gets married within a particular age span, and if HR considers this and makes a gender bias, we should not take this otherwise.

Male or female may leave the organization at any time, but when you are almost certain that a female is in that particular age span where marriage is going to be on the cards and further she is not sure of her future place of stay, then there is no fun in recruiting a female for a shorter period. You have to do the same recruitment exercise again if you ignore the above factor. There exist very few cases where a female, after her marriage, has decided to continue a job at the same place while her husband stays at a distant place, and they meet either on a weekly, fortnightly, or monthly basis. How many females stay alone after marriage and prioritize their career first? Only a limited number. In cases of marriage, females play a very important role concerning their career and for their organization. But how many? The answer is limited.

There are records of cases where females misuse the legal protection given to them under the law of the land. Most females who avail maternity leave generally extend the same on the grounds of medical reasons or because the baby is small and needs more time, or there is no one in the family who can take care. In such cases, it is nothing but the natural motherhood instinct playing a bigger role than a career. 10-15% of cases are genuinely on medical grounds, but the rest are without any logical reasons.

Under these circumstances, what will be the position of the employer? Alternates are available but only for the long term. How many females opt for a vacancy created against maternity leave of a female employee, i.e., a short-term employment? No one can make anyone career-conscious except themselves. Most employers have accepted the legal parameters, but what happens to the business if the facility provided under the law is misused.

If a female is career-conscious, job protection takes a second stage. Employers do understand the role of females in our society.

HR, while considering such cases, has to assess the mindset behind females leaving the job and opting for a new job.

I have seen young females leaving jobs even more than 45 days ahead of their marriage and also females joining duty after 15-20 days of marriage.

Believe me, 90-95% of females extend their maternity leave and also seek job security.

I am sure females will never like such remarks, but to some extent, they also realize the factual position behind the above.

I strongly believe that HR has to play a bigger role in justifying their steps in such cases, both to female candidates and to their employers.

How many of us agree with this?

Regards,

Anil Anand

Hello All,

This is a really important issue that has been raised. By the way, I am Rakhi and new to this place. I am working as an HR manager in a medium-sized IT company.

I have come across this issue very recently; we selected a candidate who is really competent for the position. She is being kept on hold just because she has a 3-year-old son, and the management feels it will affect her performance.

Rajat and Priyanka have articulated things very effectively. As HR professionals, we need to be aware and have confidence in the decisions we make when recommending such cases. There are many women who are not in the marriage-child-settlement phase and are highly focused on their careers; we need to recognize and support this.

It was great to read your thoughts; this is probably the most active and professionally serious place I have encountered on the web.

Nice to join you.

Regards,
Rakhi

Dear All,

I totally agree with the comment; we, as HR professionals, need to take care of our employees and try to bridge the gap. I have just joined this group. I am working with one of the real estate companies in Gurgaon.

Thanks,
Ruchi

[Admin: Sent by Priyanka]