Women choosing to stay at home? There's more to this than "lifestyle choices"

This week it was announced that the Chairman of one of the world's leading advertising agencies will resign over comments he made about the representation of women in the upper echelons of business. In an interview with Business Insider last week, Kevin Roberts, Executive Chairman of Saatchi & Saatchi, had denied that sex discrimination is a problem in the advertising industry, arguing that if women are absent from managerial positions it is only because the wise creatures are increasingly shunning high-flying careers in favour of different standards of success.

The “Darwinian urges of wealth, power and fame” do not resonate with millenials, he said. “Their ambition is not a vertical ambition. It's this intrinsic, circular ambition to be happy. So they say: 'We are not judging ourselves by those standards that you idiotic dinosaur-like men judge yourself by.’ I don't think [the lack of women in leadership roles] is a problem. I'm just not worried about it because [lower down the ranks] they are very happy, they're very successful, and doing great work”—and that is all they want.

Parent company Publicis announced that Roberts had been asked to take a leave of absence soon after the comments were published, and he has now resigned.

The views Roberts expressed are worrying from someone in a position of leadership. He veered into particularly troubling territory when asked about the experiences of Cindy Gallop, an advertising consultant who has been vocal about the effects of bias against women in the industry and elsewhere. Roberts suggested she might be “making up a lot of the stuff” as a way of self-promotion.

Yet he is not alone in believing that women are no longer prioritising career success in the traditional sense. Just a couple of weeks ago, women's magazine Grazia published an article entitled “The rise of the happiness hunters,” based on interviews with women who had ditched established careers or opportunities for promotion in order to seek other sources of fulfilment—travelling, creative outlets or the pleasures of a freelance lifestyle. “Smart, successful women are increasingly walking out on lucrative careers to pursue their dreams,” the article ran.

There is something of a consensus emerging that the current generation of would-be yuppies—university-educated men and women in their 20s and 30s—are demanding more from life than an office and a computer screen. Sceptical of the promised fruits of professional life following the financial crisis; pushed over the edge by employers and technologies that never allow them to switch off; and enticed by the relatively new freedom of cheap travel, members of “Generation YOLO” (“You Only Live Once”) are after a better work-life balance, job satisfaction, opportunities for career breaks and changes, and more control over their own time.

But is Roberts right to suggest that this phenomenon is affecting women more than men? A recent survey of this age group of workers by Deloitte found a clear trend that they are less loyal to the companies they work for than previous generations; they tend to feel that their professional development is neglected; they desire more flexibility in their work; and are more strongly guided in their professional choices by personal values that may conflict with organisational values. The report found little difference between men and women in most of their attitudes and preferences but the authors do note that women placed greater emphasis on flexible working and the ability to derive a sense of meaning from their work. They also note that although roughly equal proportions of men and women report feeling overlooked for senior roles, men are more likely to actually be in those roles.

And this is suggestive of what might really be going on here. Roberts's comments are a reincarnation of the age-old claim that women don't reach the top because they don't want to—perhaps they'd prefer to stay at home, or they'd rather deal with people than numbers, or they're uncomfortable with high levels of pressure. In emphasising the agency of women's absence from the boardroom as a lifestyle choice, this claim simultaneously denies any structural causes. It absolves any responsibility on the part of the employer because managers can't change people's individual preferences.

Except that, as the Deloitte report highlights, people's preferences are generally similar—men and women alike. Nobody really wants to spend most of their waking hours in an office; few enjoy unrelenting levels of stress; and everyone wants to feel valued. The difference is that these things affect women more than men. Women without children (most of those in the “millenial” category surveyed by Deloitte) are the group most likely to work unpaid overtime, while those with children do less overtime but more childcare. Women continue to do a “double shift” of housework when they get back from work. They have to fight harder to get ahead in their careers and need to outperform men simply to be considered for the same positions. Unsurprisingly, they then experience higher levels of stress. And all of this for 14 per cent less pay than their male colleagues. Simply put, the costs and benefits of pursuing a high-flying career are different for men and women. So if it's true that more women are jumping off the career ladder, it's a good bet that's why.

Business leaders can't solve all these problems—at least not on their own, or overnight. But denying that the problem exists gets us nowhere. If you are responsible for the careers of thousands of employees, it's not good enough to simply state that women are choosing to shun successful careers. It is the responsibility of business leaders to dig deeper and ask why that might be.