Career Responsibilities

🏃♀️ Imagine a study on marathon performance that doesn't mention some runners are carrying 50-pound backpacks. That's the 2025 Women in the Workplace report from Mckinsey and LeanIn 60 pages on why women "want promotions less." Zero mentions of childcare, eldercare, or the invisible second shift. Their own data shows women and men are equally committed to their careers, over 90% on every measure. Young women under 30 has even more ambitious than young men. Latinas are the most ambitious group in the entire study. 🤔 So where does this "ambition gap" come from? Buried on page 10, in a small box, they note that women who decline promotion cite "personal obligations" at nearly double the rate of men. Then they move on. No follow-up. No analysis. No asking the obvious question: What are these "personal obligations"? 💔 I'll tell you what they are. 👉 They're the 2am feeding before your 8am presentation. 👉 The school pickup that can't be rescheduled. 👉 The elderly parent who needs a doctor's appointment during your board meeting. 👉 The mental load of remembering everyone's everything while being told you "lack ambition." The report measured ambition without measuring the invisible infrastructure women are running at home. 👉 Here's what the report should have asked: ⁉️ Do women with equal childcare support want promotions at the same rate as men? ⁉️ Do women with flexible work arrangements show the same career drive? ⁉️ Does the "ambition gap" exist in countries with subsidized childcare? (Spoiler: Research says no, no, and no.) Instead, they concluded women are less ambitious and moved on to solutions that don't address the actual problem. This isn't just a missed opportunity. It's a misdirection! ❌ Because when you diagnose "ambition gap" instead of "care gap," you get solutions like "women need more confidence" instead of "workplaces need to stop penalizing caregiving." You get women blamed for systemic failures. 📊 Here's what an honest report would say: ✅ Women aren't less ambitious. They're doing two jobs while being evaluated as if they're doing one. ✅ The workplace wasn't designed for people with caregiving responsibilities. It was designed for people with wives. ✅ Until we redesign the system, we'll keep "discovering" that women don't want what men want, when really, women just can't afford what men take for granted. That's exactly why we built "From Hidden Talent to Visible Leader", because the women I work with aren't lacking ambition. They're lacking a system that sees their full contribution. Next cohort starts end of Jan 2026. 👉 Join the waitlist: https://lnkd.in/gx7CpGGR 👊 Because women don't have an ambition problem. The workplace has a measurement problem, and it starts with reports that count everything except what actually matters.

A significant hurdle to women in asset management becoming Portfolio Managers is that the promotion decision is typically taken around the time many women have children, i.e. early 30s or after approximately 10 years as an Analyst. While most women take extended parental leave, men rarely do; in addition, women typically bear the majority of childcare responsibilities after birth. Moreover, there is an age range where, if a woman has not made PM, she likely never will and is viewed as a career analyst. Relative earnings dynamics within a family amplifies workplace dynamics. If a woman is overlooked for promotion in her early 30s while having children, her earnings may have fallen significantly behind her partner’s by her late 30s. The family dynamic may either dissuade her from returning to work or require her to bear more childcare responsibilities after returning, further increasing inequality. The career interruption from pregnancy applies outside of promotion concerns. A woman in the early stages of pregnancy or intending to become pregnant may be reluctant to take risk (e.g. by speaking up, making a contrarian investment, or switching firm) because, if she is made redundant, it will be difficult for her to find a new job as she will be at a late stage of pregnancy. One interviewee knows of women who have had abortions because they were too new in the job and being pregnant would expose them to too much career risk. This issue is highlighted in my report on Cognitive Diversity in Asset Management for Diversity Project - Investment Industry. https://lnkd.in/eASk7x3P Potential solutions are in my response to the FCA's consultation on Diversity and Inclusion in the Financial Sector at https://lnkd.in/eWgkd8qz (see p7). I would be grateful to learn of additional solutions: please leave a comment.

You know it. I know it. Return to office isn't neutral. It disproportionately impacts women, especially mothers and caregivers. I was honored to share my thoughts with Taylor Telford for her latest The Washington Post piece exploring how aggressive RTO policies are pushing women's progress backwards. (Link in comments) As I shared in this piece, it is not a "choice" when the options are so limited. Women are once again finding themselves pushed out of the paid workforce. Some key takeaways from the article: 👉 After decades of gradual progress, the gender wage gap is widening again. In 2024, women earned just 80.9 cents for every dollar earned by men, dropping from 84 cents in 2022. 👉 For many women, especially those with caregiving responsibilities, rigid office policies are forcing "choices": accept demotions, take pay cuts, or leave entirely. 👉 Turnover among women at companies with strict in-office mandates is nearly THREE TIMES that of men. 👉 The lack of affordable, accessible childcare continues to widen the pay gap. 👉 Policies like RTO and limiting flexibility are stagnating women who feel forced to step off the ladder towards career growth to manage caregiving. This is exactly why at WRK/360, our mission is to help workplaces ACTUALLY be family and caregiving friendly. Not just in rhetoric, but in policy, culture, and practice. The dynamics the article highlights aren’t hypothetical; they are the exact challenges we work with our clients on daily. ✔️ We help companies design policies (e.g., hybrid, flexible schedules, core hours) that allow for collaboration without penalizing caregivers ✔️We coach leadership on equitable performance criteria so that remote or hybrid contributors are not implicitly devalued ✔️We partner with organizations to embed family-supportive programs that retain talent. HR and leadership teams: 👉 Still considering an RTO mandate? Think about what this really means for women and caregivers. 👉 Already have one in place? Run an audit on your turnover. How has this policy impacted men vs. women? Caregivers vs. non-caregivers? What talent are you losing? Together, we can protect the progress made over decades and stop pushing women and caregivers out of the paid workforce.

Am I really about to write this…….  It’s so disheartening to see that some age-old biases still rear their ugly heads in the professional sphere. Today, I had a conversation with a BRILLIANT senior candidate in the events industry, a single mother with an impressive skill set and an undeniable passion for her work. Yet, despite her qualifications and expertise, she found herself repeatedly overlooked for senior roles simply because she needed a modicum of flexibility to balance her career with her family responsibilities. Let's be clear: this isn't about a lack of talent or capability. This is about systemic biases that continue to disadvantage women, particularly mothers, in the workplace. It's a tale as old as time. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, remote work and flexible schedules became the norm for many industries. Companies adapted overnight to accommodate these changes, recognizing that productivity and performance are not confined to traditional office hours or locations. Yet, even as we navigate this new landscape, it seems that old prejudices die hard. It's time for a reality check. Women, especially mothers, should not have to choose between advancing their careers and being present for their families. The persistent gender gap in leadership positions is not due to a lack of qualified candidates but rather a failure of organizations to dismantle outdated norms and biases. When we overlook talented individuals simply because they prioritise caregiving responsibilities, we perpetuate a cycle of inequality that harms not only those directly affected but also stifles innovation and progress within our organizations. It's up to all of us �� leaders, colleagues, and allies to challenge gender stereotypes and advocate for equity in the workplace. In the end, diversity and inclusion are not just buzzwords – they are fundamental principles that drive innovation, foster creativity, and propel companies forward. It's time to shatter the glass ceiling once and for all and create a world where talent, not gender, determines success! Rant over... but it truly struck a nerve. It's infuriating to witness, especially when exceptional candidates lose out. But mark my words, the company wise enough to hire her for her next role will undoubtedly emerge as the ultimate victors in the end! #GenderEquality #WorkplaceEquity #InclusionMatters #EmpowerWomen Anna Whitehouse

“Behind every great man, there’s a great woman.” Give me a break. That line has been sold to us as a compliment. But it’s not. It keeps women in the shadows as the supporter, the caregiver, the one who makes sacrifices so a man can shine. The reality? - Women make up almost 40% of the global workforce. - Women-founded startups generate 2x more revenue per dollar invested. - Companies with women in senior leadership are 21% more likely to outperform competitors. Yet women still: ❌ Receive only 2% of venture capital funding. ❌ Make up less than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs. ❌ Are paid 16% less on average than men for the same roles. This isn’t about “being behind” anyone. It’s about being systemically overlooked, underfunded, and underestimated. And the cost isn’t just to women. It’s to society, innovation, and the economy. McKinsey estimates that closing the gender gap could add $12 trillion to global GDP by 2025. So no, women don’t need to be framed as the ones behind. They’ve been building, leading, and changing the game all along. Maybe it’s time we stop with the clichés. And start giving women the credit they’ve earned, not as supporting characters, but as the story itself.

McKinsey & Company and Lean In just released their 11th annual Women in the Workplace report. And this year’s findings should stop leaders in their tracks: corporate America is failing women. The gains we’ve celebrated over the past decade are at risk, and we should be shocked, appalled, and galvanized to act. ➡️ Only 50% of companies are prioritizing women’s career advancement in 2025. ➡️ The number is even lower for women of color. ➡️ Two in ten companies place little or no priority on advancing women at all, rising to three in ten for women of color. I’ve felt this firsthand. Speaking inquiries and advisory are down. In early 2025, clients paused all programs that advance women, often saying: “We don’t want to stop this, but can we pause everything for now?” But I’ll be honest, I didn’t expect the numbers to fall this low. Why does this matter? Because once companies take their foot off the gas, progress stalls. Opportunities vanish long before women ever reach senior leadership. We were still trying to reach parity at the tippy top, still trying to fix broken systems, and now half of companies are stepping away entirely. So what happens next? You’ll see more women opt out of traditional pathways. Not because they can’t handle the pressure, but because they are naming the truth: the system wasn’t built for them, and many organizations aren’t even trying to fix it anymore. Maybe they will wait for a slightly better job market but you are going to see more women exit. And now the ambition data: for the first time in 11 years of this study, women are less likely than men to want a promotion. ✅ At entry level, 69% of women say they want a promotion compared to 80% of men.  ✅ At senior levels, 84% of women vs. 92% of men. But here’s the most important finding from the report: when women receive the same sponsorship and manager support as men, this ambition gap disappears. The issue was never women's ambition. It’s access, advocacy, and structural support. It shows what companies do, the actions they take, matter. This echoes what I’ve been studying in my work on the Corporate Heroine and the Corporate Fairytale. We raised a generation of women leaders on the belief that if they checked every box, over-delivered, and powered through obstacles, the system would rise to meet them. But the system never promised that. It demanded flawless performance without providing the scaffolding to grow. It offered a fairytale without the architecture to make that fairytale real. This year’s data confirms what women have been saying quietly: they aren’t pulling away from leadership. They are questioning whether the cost of leading inside outdated systems is worth it. If organizations want progress, 2026 must be a year of renewed commitment. Sponsorship. Advocacy. Flexibility. These are not perks. They are the foundation that makes advancement possible. The roadmap is clear. The question now is whether leaders will follow it.

I was the only woman in the room so through some unspoken rule — I was supposed to plan the farewell party? A University of California survey of 3,000 employees found that women were 29% more likely than white men to report doing more office “housework” than their colleagues. Planning team lunches, and parties, taking notes, cleaning up the table after a meeting, scheduling calls — and other such “thankless” tasks often fall into women’s laps. Each of these is significantly hurting gender equality. Harvard Business Review labels these tasks as 'low-promotability tasks' — that are helpful to the organization but the person performing them isn’t perceived as making an impact. The way work is allocated in organizations needs to change. Not only do we need to re-address the perceived value attached to these tasks, but we also need to ensure that women aren’t the only ones doing office housework. Whenever it happened to me, I didn't have the courage to push back. I still wish I had. It's an unappreciated burden that a lot of women carry but we’re afraid of pushing back because we want to be seen as team players. It's time leaders make sure all work is shared equally, including “Dave’s” goodbye lunch. The trend of non-strategic work being piled up on women's desks needs to stop. We don't need logistical tasks, give us career-making roles and responsibilities. We'll no longer accept being sidelined. #bias #genderequality #womenintech #womenleaders #career #leadership

It’s International Women’s Day coming up! And a business just emailed me offering 20% off solar lights to celebrate..... Because nothing says gender equality like a discount on outdoor lighting. And honestly, this sums up how most businesses approach today. They post pictures of their female staff. They put on cupcakes. But what are they actually doing? Women are still the primary caregivers. In 54% of Australian families, the mother is the main carer. Only 4% say it’s the father. Mothers are the ones making career sacrifices. 80% of UK mothers leave full-time work after having kids, moving to part-time or reducing their hours. Workplace inflexibility is forcing women out. In Australia, nearly one-third (32%) of mothers who faced discrimination related to pregnancy or parental leave quit or had to find a new job. In the UK, over half (52%) of women have left or considered leaving a job due to a lack of flexible working options. Businesses that actually offer real flexibility (remote work, part-time, hybrid) retain their female talent longer, boost productivity, and perform better financially. So, if a company isn’t offering real flexibility to support women’s careers, what exactly are they celebrating today? Because cupcakes don’t fix this.

Heat. Air Quality. Insurance Costs. An Indian Reality We Must Confront. Reflecting on a recent article I read around on how global heatwaves, air pollution, extreme weather are no longer distant threats. They’re having real, measurable impacts on homes, health, and financial risk. As an insurance broker, I believe it’s our duty to understand these changes, and help India stay resilient. Here’s what our sector should be really be thinking about:   What’s Changing, and Why It Matters 1. Rising temperatures and worsening air quality are more than environmental issues, they lead to greater health risks (respiratory, cardiovascular), increased mortality, and greater stress on medical systems. 2. Homes in many Indian cities are more exposed: ageing infrastructure, poor insulation or ventilation, and limited cooling systems magnify heat stress. 3. As insurers factoring in more frequent claims for heat damage, pollution-related losses, and weather disasters, premiums go up. That may make cover harder to access for many.   What the Insurance Industry Must Do 1. Embed Climate & Health Risk into Underwriting We need granular data: mapping risk zones for heat, pollution, flood etc., and using that to price fairly. Homes in “hot-spots” may need additional risk mitigation built into policies. 2. Design Products that Pay for Prevention Develop solutions that reward preventive measures, from cool roofing and air filtration to safer construction practices, where it is best to avoid the use of hazardous materials like asbestos. Parametric/trigger-based covers can also play a role, activating when thresholds such as heat index or AQI are breached. 3. Educate and Partner with Clients Many customers are unaware of how indoor heat or local air quality can damage property, health, and finances. Brokers must become educators, helping people assess risk, explore mitigation, reduce exposure. 4.Collaborate with Regulators & Local Governments Building codes, city planning, heat-mitigation infrastructure, pollution control, these are public goods that reduce risk for everyone. Working together can help reduce insurance risk, keep costs manageable, and make adaptation scalable. Why This Is a Leadership Opportunity India is uniquely placed. We have diverse climates, rapid urbanisation, and growing awareness. By acting now: Build trust: clients will value brokers who anticipate change, offer stable, forward-looking solutions. Drive innovation: those who develop climate-resilient products will lead, not lag, as regulation and customer expectations evolve. The realities of climate change are here and so are opportunities: to protect, to innovate, to lead. Insurance isn’t just about recovering losses, it’s about building resilience and enabling safer, healthier lives. #ClimateRisk #IndiaResilience #HealthAndClimate #RiskManagement https://lnkd.in/dYrveZd3 

A £120k HR Director I worked with last year took a 14-month career break to care for her mother. When she returned to the job market, she applied for 23 roles at or below her previous level. She received 4 interviews. She was told in two of them that her 'gap' was a concern. 14 months. Not 5 years. Not a decade. 14 months, caring for a parent, and it was enough for panels to question her 'commitment' and 'currency.' I have worked with returners throughout my career. The pattern is consistent: the career break itself is rarely the issue. The issue is how panels interpret it when they see it on a CV. ❌ Listing a career break as a gap on your CV with no context. ✅ Frame the break as a deliberate decision. '2024-2025: Career break, full-time carer for a family member. During this period, I maintained my CIPD membership, completed a Level 7 module in Employment Law, and consulted informally with two former colleagues on restructuring projects.' The break should read as a chapter, not a gap. ❌ Apologising for the break in interviews. 'I know I've been out of the market...' ✅ Own it without apology. 'I made a decision to prioritise family care for 14 months. During that time, I stayed connected to the profession through [specific activities]. I am returning because I am ready to lead at this level again, and this role aligns with where I want to take my career.' ❌ Accepting a significant salary downgrade as 'the cost of coming back.' ✅ Benchmark your market value using current data, not guilt. 14 months out of a 20-year career does not reduce your worth by 25%. If a company offers £90k for a role worth £120k because you have a gap, that is not a reasonable adjustment. It is an exploitation of your perceived vulnerability. I call this The Return Penalty: the informal devaluation that happens when a career break is treated as evidence of reduced capability rather than evidence of a life lived outside work. Here is the follow-up question most companies cannot answer: if your organisation genuinely supports returners, how many of your hires in the last 12 months had career gaps of more than 12 months? If the answer is zero, the policy is not the problem. The process is. Have you experienced the return penalty? Or have you been on a panel where a career break changed the way you assessed a candidate?