Women's career and 21st century solutions

Women and work. Women rights. Women discrimination. These are some of the worldwide always actual topics.

Gender equality, salary differences based on gender discrimination, women and top management positions, modern slavery, domestic abuse, right to property, harassment are still issues affecting the women of the 21st century.

During the whole 19th century, women had no political rights though there had been some movement in other areas to advance the rights of women. By the early 19th century, acceptable occupations for working women were limited to factory labor or domestic work. Writing and teaching where the only professions where women were not excluded from. In some European countries,  until 1965 married women did not receive the right to work without their husband's permission. Later on, despite their increased presence in the work force, most women still had primary responsibility for housework and family care.

A crucial issue for many women was maternity leave, or time off from their jobs after giving birth. Although in most states, a full-time worker was entitled to time off and a  job when she returned, only a few states by the early 1990s required the leave to be paid.

Today many women are continuing to strive for their career and at the same time to build up a family. They don't only want a job, they want their merits to be recognised, to get management roles and to eliminate salary gaps based on gender discrimination. They want to be independent, to decide for their life and actions.  

Companies who are chasing valuable candidates have noticed how strong  this social trend has become and some of them came up with measures that are meant to encourage women to focus on their career by postponing their family life. 

Two of these companies are Apple and Facebook. Recently, the two international companies announced that they are or will pay the egg freezing for the employees who are interested in this procedure. This was presented to the public as a great benefit that is responding to the needs of the employees.

It seems to be the perfect solution for those who have to or want to postpone the childbirth.

However, I can't stop thinking at the actual message behind this program.

What are the employers encouraging? Is this going to be a relief for the employees or it will actually put more pressure on them?

In my opinion, the fine print text that comes with this program is: "A woman's career is not being compatible with motherhood. Therefore we help you to postpone the childbirth as much as possible and concentrate on work ".

How about paying for nannies, flexible working time or home office in the first 1 - 2 years after the baby's birth, longer parental vacation for the father and programs to encourage fathers to get more involved in their parental activities, creating or supporting a kindergarten near the company?

Arenˋt these types of measures the ones which truly encourage and support families and career?

In my opinion they are and they should be used and promoted as much as possible. These are also the measures who will help companies to gain the loyalty and commitment from the employees.

Although things are going in the right direction, it will still take lots of effort for our society to get to the point where women are not discriminated because they are young and want to have both career and family.

A change in the pulic mentality has to happen, politics needs to set the ground rules and the employers need to change their perspective on family vs. commitment to the company.

Discrimination in the recruitment process

You don’t really realize how bad discrimination is until you experience it. At least I didn't...  The feeling you have when you are told up front that you might not get a job because of your nationality is far worse than I imagined.

When talking about the recruitment process there are always two parties involved: the candidates and the hiring company. Who is actually the company? Is it the general manager, the entity described at the section -”About us”, the managers? “The company” is every person that works for an employer and acts as representative of its interests. So we are talking about people who try to apply some rules and principles, to make the right decision according to their experience and knowledge. Therefore, in the recruitment process, maybe more than in other areas, there is always a great deal of subjectivism involved. Along with the job descriptions, the personality match plays a very important role in the hiring decisions.  Depending on the job, there are situations where the personality match is even more important than the technical skills which, unlike the personality, can be taught and learned in time.

How do the managers decide if a candidate has a matching personality or not? The process starts way before the first interview. It starts with the discussion between the hiring manager and the recruiter. 

The official issues discussed are the personality features desired from the future employee that are not specified in the job description. Some of the frequently requested personality traits are: honesty, responsibility, adaptability, patience, decisiveness but not only. So far so good. 

But what happens when the hiring manager says”…and I would like, if possible, someone not older than 35, single and male.”? These requirements are always said more or less with lower voice, in confidence and they are of course unofficial. Why? Because this behavior is not just unethical, it is also a breach of discrimination legislation. 

What are the options of the recruiter at this point? 

1. To tell the manager up front that this is called discrimination and this is both immoral and illegal. 

2. To write down the extra requirements and to start searching for the right candidate. 

3. To convince the manager to consider also people that don’t match exactly his last requirements but who meet all the other requirements regarding knowledge, experience, skills and competences- these criteria being essential for the job. 

What recruiters choose to do in this situation can have a great impact on the final decision. While it is almost impossible to change someone’s prejudices, way of seeing things and preferences, presenting candidates whose selection was based on knowledge, experience and skills, can sometimes avoid discrimination. 

However, discrimination in the recruitment process is not always generated by the managers. Recruiters earn their living through placing an applicant in the advertised position as efficiently as possible. How every recruiter understands to do that depends very much on their ethics, background, education, social environment and experience. Recruiters can as well have prejudices, positive or negative experiences with some category of people and this can and will most of the times influence the selection process.  

Despite all anti-discrimination legislation, this phenomenon is everywhere and will continue to be a problem especially because it is very hard to be proved. 

s and principles, to make the right decision according to their experience and knowledge. Therefore, in the recruitment process, maybe more than in other areas, there is always a great deal of subjectivism involved. Along with the job descriptions, the personality match plays a very important role in the hiring decisions.  Depending on the job, there are situations where the personality match is even more important than the technical skills which, unlike the personality, can be taught and learned in time.

How do the managers decide if a candidate has a matching personality or not? The process starts way before the first interview. It starts with the discussion between the hiring manager and the recruiter. 

The official issues discussed are the personality features desired from the future employee that are not specified in the job description. Some of the frequently requested personality traits are: honesty, responsibility, adaptability, patience, decisiveness but not only. So far so good. 

But what happens when the hiring manager says”…and I would like, if possible, someone not older than 35, single and male.”? These requirements are always said more or less with lower voice, in confidence and they are of course unofficial. Why? Because this behaviour is not just unethical, it is also a breach of discrimination legislation. 

What are the options of the recruiter at this point? 

1. To tell the manager up front that this is called discrimination and this is both immoral and illegal. 

2. To write down the extra requirements and to start searching for the right candidate. 

3. To convince the manager to consider also people that don’t match exactly his last requirements but who meet all the other requirements regarding knowledge, experience, skills and competences- these criteria being essential for the job. 

What recruiters choose to do in this situation can have a great impact on the final decision. While it is almost impossible to change someone’s prejudices, way of seeing things and preferences, presenting candidates whose selection was based on knowledge, experience and skills, can sometimes avoid discrimination. 

However, discrimination in the recruitment process is not always generated by the managers. Recruiters earn their living through placing an applicant in the advertised position as efficiently as possible. How every recruiter understands to do that depends very much on their ethics, background, education, social environment and experience. Recruiters can as well have prejudices, positive or negative experiences with some category of people and this can and will most of the times influence the selection process. 

 Despite all anti-discrimination legislation, this phenomenon is everywhere and will continue to be a problem especially because it is very hard to be proved.