It’s unusual enough to hear that a major corporation anointed a woman as CEO, but a pregnant CEO?
Yahoo announced Monday that Marissa Mayer, a former Google executive, was taking the reins of the technology company, and hours later it was disclosed that she was also expecting her first child in October.
Mayer chose to disclose her pregnancy to the company’s board before she got the final job offer, and the board was supposedly fine and dandy with the news.
"They showed their evolved thinking," Mayer told Fortune.
Yahoo's board may have been reassured by Mayer's unusual description of how she plans to handle the time off she will take to have a baby.
"My maternity leave will be a few weeks long and I'll work throughout it," Mayer said.
It's the kind of news that may get other pregnant women at Yahoo further down the chain worried about the time they put in after childbirth.
Many executives in Corporate America today tout how they lead by example and show their employees that work-life balance is critical. Taking emails while dealing with a newborn might be tougher than first-time-mom-to-be Mayer realizes.
Although it is also worth noting that not all women are as lucky as Mayer to even have a maternity leave benefit. (The United States is one of the only industrialized nations without mandated maternity leave.)
In any case Yahoo's board is to be applauded for looking beyond Mayer's pregnancy to the leadership she can provide the company over the long term.
“Appointing a woman as CEO is pretty rare in and of itself, and having a pregnant one is even more rare,” said Eden King, co-author of "How Women Can Make It Work: The Science of Success." “Many women who reach that level do not have children at all, much less are pregnant at the time.”
What ever does happen for Yahoo's newest CEO, her appointment will up the ante on the working mommy debate. But don't expect it to change the work world.
“It’s a sample size of one, and it’s hard to know if this represents social change. I certainly have hope, but most of the evidence shows that there’s substantial discrimination of pregnant women who are working," said King, who’s an associate professor of psychology at George Mason University with a focus on women and the workplace.
Indeed, the number of pregnancy discrimination claims have been rising in the last decade, and that prompted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to hold a public hearing earlier this year to address the problem. “A few employers have forgotten, or never learned, that it’s against the law to discriminate against women because of pregnancy,” David Lopez, the EEOC’s general counsel during the February hearing.
It’s unlawful, he stressed, to deprive a pregnant woman "the opportunity to sustain herself or her family based on stereotypical assumptions” that she won’t be as dedicated to her employers as a man or a woman who isn't pregnant.
The number of pregnancy discrimination charges increased about 15 percent in the last 10 years to 5,797 last year. That's down slightly from 2010's total claims of 6,119, according to the EEOC.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was signed into law in 1978 in order to stop such bias, but many women's advocacy groups believe it doesn’t go far enough. A bill introduced in May called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which is similar to the American With Disabilities Act, is supposed to fill the donut hole that the previous act left open when it comes to making accommodations for pregnant women in the workplace.
“Equal opportunity in the workplace is an essential right in this country, and it is deplorable that women are still being fired, forced out of their jobs, and denied employment and promotion opportunities because they become pregnant," said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families. "The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is badly needed legislation that would help stem this discrimination and benefit women and their families tremendously.”
How will Yahoo's new CEO impact Google? Colin Gillis of BGC analyst, offers insight.
But in the end, bias against pregnant workers and whether they’ll land a certain job often comes down to perceptions, maintained King. In most cases, she said, the discrimination is based on a belief that a woman won’t be able to handle the job, or chose not to work after they have children.
In the case of Yahoo’s Mayer, she’s made it clear she’ll be more than productive in her new gig even as a mom.
Yahoo spokeswoman Dana Lengkeek said Mayer was not available for interviews Tuesday, but directed NBCNews.com to the Fortune article. Mayer did tweet the pregnancy news late Monday: "Another piece of good news today - @zackbogue and I are expecting a new baby boy!" (Zack Bogue is her husband.)
Mayer has a tough road ahead given the many Yahoo CEOs before her who have tried to turn the beleaguered company around in the last few years. There is no doubt Wall Street will be closely watching her progress. How will a pregnant CEO be perceived by investors?
"Turning Yahoo around is likely going to be a near impossible task; the stress, at least initially, is likely to be similar to that stress of starting Google, and you add to that the stress of having a child and the result could be catastrophic for one or the other," said technology analyst Rob Enderle. "On the other hand, this pregnancy might become a forcing function. Often inexperienced turnaround CEOs learn too late the necessity of building a very strong balanced team; in order to take the pressure off of her during her pregnancy building such a team will have higher priority and, in the end, it will be the team that will do this not the CEO alone."
The pregnancy, he continued, "may actually help focus Marissa on doing something that often is neglected and could actually better assure the result. In the end her job is to turn Yahoo around; how she gets there isn’t as important. Being pregnant could become a best practice which would screw a lot of male CEOs out there."
Is juggling work, after-school activities, dinner, and more leaving you feeling overwhelmed? Carol Evans, president of Working Mother Media, and Shivonne Probeck, a working single mom of two, share their secrets to enjoying your job and family.
How women handle their pregnancies and how they disclose them, will likely impact their careers, King noted.
“Marissa Mayer made the decision to tell the company before the offer, which was ethical for her to do but not legally required,” she said. “I know women who waited to disclose pregnancy until after they got a job or promotion to protect the jobs they deserved.”
On a personal note, King admitted that she was pregnant when she was up for a promotion but waited to tell her co workers and managers until after she secured the position. "I have supportive supervisors and colleagues but I didn't want to chance it," she said. "I know the research."
Some of my other groups are discussing this. I figured it was good for an 8 pager of mommy wars.
I do wonder what "work through it" means in her world.
I will be highly amused and annoyed if it does.
I'd posted the article about her appointment yesterday - minus the news of being pregnant. I figured "female taking charge of a beleaguered tech company" might perk some discussion. No one responded.
I hate that she's going to have to be the poster child and that this is even a discussion. But, those that go first always face more scrutiny, fair or not. I also think it's kind of unfair to make her a benchmark for how/if a pregnant woman/mom can pull this off. She clearly will have resources available to her that may working mothers simply do not.
I'm a little disappointed with her statement that she will work throughout her maternity leave. I think she is setting herself up in a bad way, and I would hope that a woman with her platform could send a better message. I also realize that's an unfair expectation on her.
Finally, I hope she's successful beyond her wildest dreams and wish her all the best.
Well now that she's ruining it for every other woman and ruining her only chance to raise a functioning human being, I'm sure there will be plenty to talk about.
Are we supposed to be impressed that she's working through her maternity leave rather than using it to, oh, I don't know. Bond with her child and shit? Recover from pushing a baby out of her ladybits? Anything OTHER than working?
This is what I'm thinking. But I imagine as CEO of a company like that she has live-in nannies or something that will help with the baby (and probably end up doing the majority of child-rearing in the early years anyways). I guess it will be a good time for the nanny to start bonding.
Well I couldn't do it. To each her own. I do agree that trying to turn around Yahoo with a newborn is not ideal, but they are giving her a shot for a reason.
Some of my other groups are discussing this. I figured it was good for an 8 pager of mommy wars.
I do wonder what "work through it" means in her world.
I will be highly amused and annoyed if it does.
I'd posted the article about her appointment yesterday - minus the news of being pregnant. I figured "female taking charge of a beleaguered tech company" might perk some discussion. No one responded.
But, oh, throw mommy wars into it....
I'm sorry I didn't see your post, I had meant to start one after hearing about it this morning.
First, I kind of love her and I really hope she's the spark Yahoo needs (for her own sake, not for Yahoo's). She started with Google at 24. That's just insane. Staying somewhere 4 years is ancient history in this valley, but 13?! I think it's awesome that she can land this gig without a wide range of experience, as a woman, and at age 37. She's earned her reputation as a rock star.
She's a workaholic, yes, and her answer about ML reflects that fully. On the one hand, I hatehatehate the workaholic mentality in the industry and how it's impossible to move up without it. On the other hand, I do really believe in trade offs, and that's why I'm not on the clock to CEO in 7 years. I also hate when people don't believe pregnant women about how they feel or what they believe they want/will feel in the future. She says she'll be back at work. This is who she's been for many years, motherhood doesn't necessarily change that.
I've also been really pleased with coverage on this story, what I've heard so far. NBC News Bay Area noted the pregnancy as a post script and not in conjunction with her work at all - "what a day for celebration in that house!" NPR didn't mention it at all.
I do think her taking regular leave would make a bigger impact than normal given that she's new to the company and Yahoo has been through so much change at the top that 3 months probably feels like a lifetime. I didn't think that Yahoo could be saved, but I imagine she'll be on a short leash just like everyone else has been. I really hope she does it, 'cause it would look bad if she can't.
Post by downtoearth on Jul 17, 2012 17:03:00 GMT -5
I bet after the birth she'll still be an advocate for pregnant employees getting sufficient leave time. If I were a CEO of a Fortune 500 and had a lot of compensation (in addition to the pressures), I'd probably have been able to get back to work in a couple weeks.
I think the compensation makes it more worthwhile since you can get great help and a nanny who could follow you to the office so you still get your mommy bonding time between meetings. I hope it goes well for her.
Are we supposed to be impressed that she's working through her maternity leave rather than using it to, oh, I don't know. Bond with her child and shit? Recover from pushing a baby out of her ladybits? Anything OTHER than working?
This is what I'm thinking. But I imagine as CEO of a company like that she has live-in nannies or something that will help with the baby (and probably end up doing the majority of child-rearing in the early years anyways). I guess it will be a good time for the nanny to start bonding.
Ouch - not getting bonding time and saying the nanny will be the one bonding with baby are just mean. That's mommy war ammunition.
I have a good friend who is an amazing mom to two kids and still went back to work full-time within 2 weeks of having them. To each their own.
This is what I'm thinking. But I imagine as CEO of a company like that she has live-in nannies or something that will help with the baby (and probably end up doing the majority of child-rearing in the early years anyways). I guess it will be a good time for the nanny to start bonding.
Ouch - not getting bonding time and saying the nanny will be the one bonding with baby are just mean. That's mommy war ammunition.
I have a good friend who is an amazing mom to two kids and still went back to work full-time within 2 weeks of having them. To each their own.
It's truth though. I mean, you can't have it all. If you're going back to work when your baby is two weeks old, you are sacrificing something. I'm not saying what is better or worse. Some women value their careers that much. Good for them. But she is very lucky that she has the resources to have another reliable person, like a nanny, step in and be there for her baby during that critical bonding time.
Once again, I'm not saying what is better or worse. Let's just be honest - when you go back to work that early there IS a price you pay. It's up to each of us to decide whether or not it's worth it.
Signed,
A mother who went back to work part-time with #3 at 6 weeks, which was extremely hard for me, but it was a price I had to pay for the sake of my family. Thank goodness I have an amazing sitter who stepped in for me. Not every woman is that lucky.
I agree with PP too in that it's too easy to assume that she won't go right back to work (though maybe slightly more tired). I know I got real sick of people telling me I wouldn't return to college and full time work after twins. I've got more on my plate, but I've managed for over a year now.
I hope she recognizes the opportunity to look at maternity benefits within the company.
I hate reading stuff like this, I wish she would take 6 weeks or something so that other women don't feel pressure to go ack, too. This is coming from someone who has worked part time since ds was born and really wishes I didnt have to.
when I was pregnant I thought "I can work from home with a newborn, no biggie". I even told my boss and he was like "are you sure?". We left it open for discussion. They weren't going to replace me and instead just take on the load. At the end I decided I was not going to do that to myself. Sure 100% pay sounded great, but who knew what I was up against. I was a first time mom. I sure in all hell didn't know.
I was very thankful that I decided not to. I have a pretty simple recovery and fairly easy baby. Breastfeeding was bitch. If I was not trying to feed my child, I was trying to up my supply and stash some away in case the golden nuggests dried up. I am sure conference calls with the talking pump in the background with have been fab.
I don't see how what this particular woman handles her maternity leave is going to affect any other women who intend on taking more substantial time off after having a baby. Acting like she will ruin it for everyone is a tad dramatic.
I'm not sure I understand what she's the poster child for. I think she's sending a message but not necessarily a positive one. It says, to me, "Look, I'm the CEO and I worked through my maternity leave. You may be a middle level manager but if the CEO can do it, you can suck it up too."
ETA - I wonder if all Yahoo employees would be eligible for maternity leave if they were hired when they were pregnant.
This. You're talking about a totally different level of everything with this woman. CEO =/= normal woman in any way, shape or form. She's going to have resources available to her that most other women don't that are probably going to make her going back to work infinitely easier.
I think she's going to be slammed from all sides on this - criticized for going back too soon and not bonding with her child (as she's already been in this post), criticized for not taking enough time off and not doing enough to champion for better maternity leave...I think she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
My hope is that maternity leave benefits at Yahoo ultimately become better than whatever they are right now.
Come on. its her choice. Why hate on it? I went back to school after two weeks. I plan to go back to work after 4 weeks this time (i was going to announce later but whatever, yeah, I'm pregnant). That's my choice. I am very close to my kid. Insinuating she won't bond with her kid is pure crap. On the flip side, I don't begrudge someone who takes the full 12 weeks (or more, if they get it). Good for them!
Post by secretlyevil on Jul 17, 2012 17:51:52 GMT -5
Well isn't she just all that and a bag of chips. Here we have a woman in a leadership role and she pulls this shit. Nice. I guess as a feminist I'm supposed to cheer her on as she is making this "choice." But honestly, I kind of want to slap her. AND I don't even have children.
ETA: As someone pointed out, we put a lot of scrutiny on the pioneers. It sucks but it just is. I hope she is successful and a women's/family rights advocate.
I admit that I get really annoyed fairly easily by these discussions. Some women recover quickly from childbirth. Some women have a really hard time. Personally, I'd have no qualms returning to a non physical job just a few weeks after having a baby, none at all. And the idea that she won't be able to bond with her baby if she works through her maternity leave at an office job no less is beyond ridiculous.
Plus, let's be real here, she'll have plenty of people to delegate tasks to whether it be a nanny, housekeeper, personal assistant, secretary, other executives, etc.
At the heart of it, this is an individual choice. No woman should be subject to pressure to go back to work immediately or pressured to stay home.
I hope she at least takes 2 weeks, but I can certainly see how she feels pressured to return after that. I can't imagine anything less than 2 weeks.
As a woman at Yahoo, I would be concerned about precedent-setting even subconsciously (well, our CEO didn't even need 12 weeks....are you as vital as the CEO?).
Why on earth do you want to slap her? Because SHE doesn't want to take the full time? Why do you care? I can see being upset if she said others shouldn't take the time. Or if she was trying to cut benefits for others. But why do you care how much time she takes?
For the people doubting Yahoo's leave policy I can say that Google offers unlimited sick days and maternity leave to all employees begining the first day. Some companies treat their employees really, really well and I would sooner lump yahoo in with google rather than woman hating Staples. She is furthermore an exception and not an example.
Why on earth do you want to slap her? Because SHE doesn't want to take the full time? Why do you care? I can see being upset if she said others shouldn't take the time. Or if she was trying to cut benefits for others. But why do you care how much time she takes?
Because I want to slap some sense into her and say you're not doing anyone favors, including yourself.
However, you're right its not my life so why should I care? But SHE made it public by announcing her pregnancy. While Yahoo! is a public company, she was under no obligation to announce her pregnancy to anyone. It was professional courtesy to tell her board.
Post by decemberwedding07 on Jul 17, 2012 18:29:44 GMT -5
For a CEO, that sounds about right. If a woman were to become president and if she happened to become pregnant, I think we'd all want to know that she was going to be working throughout her ML and that her ML would be brief. We'd want to know that the country was still being taken care of. You don't just hire a temp for certain positions. I think CEO is one of them.