\n
<\/p>\n
Being penalized for using flexible working policies\u2014remote work, hybrid work, parental leave, and more\u2014can be subtle, or screamingly obvious.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Nicole Yelland, a communications strategist from Detroit, has experienced both. In one remote role, she was managed by a hostile boss whose explosive \u201cHulk-out\u201d rages made work miserable. The breaking point came when her 5-year-old daughter was laid out sick in Yelland\u2019s office during a call, and her manager erupted, asking what her \u201ckid is doing in the office\u201d in an expletive-packed rant: \u201cYou\u2019re not paying attention! You\u2019re not committed!\u201d He then dismissed remote work as \u201cBS\u201d\u2014as he himself was working from his large house in the country. When Yelland asked what he did when his own child was sick, he replied: \u201cThat\u2019s what his mother is for.\u201d She says she hid her daughter from the camera on future videoconference calls, and sent him her resignation notice shortly thereafter.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The same pattern emerged in another job. There, the pressure to stay reachable bled into her time off. Before taking a day of PTO to support a friend, she informed her boss that she wouldn\u2019t be bringing her laptop. But when she returned on Monday, things felt amiss. \u201cEveryone was off in the corners whispering,\u201d she recalls. She later learned the team had struck a new deal with a big brand, but colleagues had been told not to fill her in because she \u201cwasn\u2019t available after hours.\u201d Her boss also demanded that Yelland take all calls within her earshot, and one morning when Yelland\u2019s car battery drained, she was told to use PTO for the hour missed rather than count it as her lunch hour.
Yelland also resigned from this role, and it\u2019s no coincidence that she now runs her own business. \u201cI got sick and tired of having to deal with company policies developed for the right reasons, but interpreted in the wrong way,\u201d she explains.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Her story serves as a depressing snapshot of the motherhood penalty. However, new research shows that when flexible work is treated as something just for mothers, it not only exposes women to bias, but it can also make the policy harder for everyone else<\/em> to use. Yet framing it as a policy for everyone, not just parents, enables more workers to take it up\u2014regardless of their parenthood status or gender.<\/p>\n Heejung Chung, the study\u2019s coauthor and director of King’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King\u2019s Business School, was surprised by the results.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI expected mothers who remote-worked to be penalized more, but the negative effects of remote working are more pronounced for non-mother groups, especially fathers,\u201d Chung says. With the \u2018motherhood penalty\u2019 so deeply entrenched, managers already hold biases against the capacity of mothers to be motivated and productive. The bigger picture, though, is that when flexible work is framed as a mother\u2019s or parent\u2019s policy, it discourages everyone else from asking for it\u2014and leads managers to ration or withhold opportunities to work flexibly.<\/p>\n \u201cEmployees decide what flexible working behaviors are acceptable based on how others, particularly leaders, act,\u201d says Dana Rogers, VP of people and great work at the workplace software company O.C. Tanner. \u201cIf single or childless employees only see their colleagues with children working from home or adjusting their schedules, or if people leaders are using exclusive language when discussing flexible work, they\u2019re less likely to think those policies are available for them to enjoy.\u201d In the end, everyone loses.\u00a0<\/p>\n Flexible work in the U.S. is under attack. New RTO mandates land every week, and 23% of American employers<\/a> changed their remote or hybrid policies in the past year. Since January, companies including Instagram<\/a>, Paramount Skydance<\/a>, and Home Depot<\/a> have pushed staff back to the office full time, while others<\/a> have raised in-office requirements. \u201cMe, a father doing childcare, was a bit unexpected,\u201d explains Crowcroft, a dad of two. \u201cWhat was really egregious was their outward public support for mums, dads, and nontraditional family arrangements\u2014yet I experienced the exact opposite.\u201d \u201cI started screenshotting my Slack messages to prove I was actually responsive,\u201d he recalls. \u201cWhen doing it, I just thought: This is madness<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Now working for himself, he says he\u2019s unlikely to take another in-office role, partly because he enjoys being a freelancer\u2014but also due to the chronic lack of flexibility he\u2019s witnessed.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhen I\u2019ve gone for jobs recently, I\u2019ve been very clear that I have young children, that they might get sick, and that I won\u2019t be available 3 to 5 p.m. five days a week,\u201d he says. \u201cHaving been burned so many times before, I\u2019m really conscious of expectations.\u201d<\/p>\n Even when Crowcroft spelled things out for managers, part of the problem was that the policies were too vague. When expectations aren\u2019t clearly defined or consistently communicated, assumptions rush in to fill the gaps. That could lead to more manager stigma toward remote work in general, whether the policy is aimed at parents or not.<\/p>\n \u201cThey get tied to visible needs rather than equitable programs that are designed to support all employers,\u201d O.C. Tanner’s Rogers says. \u201cOthers won\u2019t use the policies for fear they seem lazy, that they\u2019re taking advantage, or are less committed to their role.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Over time, businesses will find that flexibility isn\u2019t equally used, even when it\u2019s equally offered.\u00a0Some of the imbalance stems from entrenched biases that won\u2019t disappear overnight, but there is plenty that businesses can do to build equitable flexibility. And it starts with reframing flexibility altogether.<\/p>\n \u201cDon\u2019t think about these as family policies. Think of them as global talent recruitment and retention strategies,\u201d King’s College’s Chung says. \u201cIt\u2019s become so sought after that people will forgo income to get more flexibility.\u201d The goal shouldn\u2019t just be to offer flexible work policies, but to normalize using them. That means reinforcing the use, rewarding it, and making it visible across the organization so, as Rogers puts it, \u201ceveryone feels like they have governance over their work.\u201d<\/p>\n Employees already understand that their coworkers live different lives and might need to structure their day differently. O.C. Tanner\u2019s research<\/a> shows that 68% believe flexibility should be available regardless of the role, marital status, or location. And the sooner that happens, the more the playing field can be leveled.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis is far bigger than just something for parents,\u201d Crowcroft says. \u201cIt\u2019s about a mindset that taps into how we work on a deeper level.\u201d<\/p>\n
The study<\/a>, conducted by the King\u2019s College Business School in London and the National University of Singapore, surveyed 473 managers in Singapore, Germany, and the U.K., testing how they judged six different hypothetical employees who worked remotely in a range of different patterns. It found that when policies are geared toward mothers or parents, managers have worse perceptions of remote working in regard to commitments, productivity, team spirit, and promotion opportunities. These managers believe that remote work is simply a work-life balance perk\u2014not something that\u2019s actually good for teams.\u00a0<\/p>\nManager bias toward remote-working parents is bad for all remote workers<\/h2>\n
As Chung points out: \u201cThey start from such a low position already, so their choice to work remotely confirms biases about them.\u201d However, fathers\u2014typically viewed as highly competent workers (think “top of the food chain”)\u2014face harsher penalties if they deviate from this assumption by choosing to work remotely. \u201cWorking from home exposes their caring responsibilities outside work, which all fathers have, or should have,\u201d Chung explains. It makes visible what\u2019s otherwise hidden, and in those circumstances, they\u2019re penalized in the same way as mothers.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\nEven openly “flexible” companies fall into the trap<\/h2>\n
The shift is broader than headline mandates. In what teleconferencing software company Owl Labs calls \u201chybrid creep<\/a>,\u201d hybrid workers are increasingly going in four days a week, and Fast Company<\/em> has found that many Americans are moving back to big cities to comply with policy changes. The pressure is coming from the top, too: President Donald Trump has demanded federal workers return in person and mocked home working<\/a> as time spent playing tennis or golf. Morale is tanking: Gallup\u2019s 2026 State of the Global Workplace report<\/a> found job optimism fell among fully remote workers and remote-capable workers who are now deskbound full time, while it remained flat among hybrid staff.
It matters because once flexibility loses favorability, companies feel more comfortable cutting back on it\u2014which is exactly what Deloitte<\/a> and Zoom<\/a> have recently done with parental leave and PTO. It\u2019s clear that flexible work is still treated as a perk for a narrow group, not a normal part of work design. When companies frame flexibility as a special benefit, they make it easier to trim, harder to defend, and less likely to feel like a right.
Even companies that loudly tout flexible credentials can fall into the trap of penalizing workers who actually use the policies. London-based journalist Orlando Crowcroft learned the hard way. He has started and been forced to quit jobs at four large tech firms because they were unwilling to accommodate his childcare commitments.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The rhythm was painfully familiar to Yelland\u2019s. Within six weeks of starting each role (two of which were fully remote), a manager would flag that Crowcroft wasn\u2019t online enough, especially during the school run. He\u2019d apologize and try to be more available, while reinforcing his fixed commitments as a dad.\u00a0<\/p>\nShooting for equitable flexibility<\/h2>\n
They\u2019re also productivity strategies, and they should be communicated that way. Indeed, Stanford University economist Nick Bloom<\/a> found that a “2-3” model (two days home, three in office) has no negative impact on productivity, and it reduces quit rates by 33%. When employees are satisfied with their level of flexibility, they\u2019re 384% more likely<\/a> to stay with the organization another year.\u00a0<\/p>\n