When bosses brand flexibility as parental perk, harm spreads

motherhood penalty – A new study and interviews with working parents in multiple countries show that when remote work, hybrid schedules, and related flexibility are framed as “for mothers/parents,” managers judge commitment and productivity more harshly. The result can be worse ou

On a video call, Nicole Yelland expected to do her job. She didn’t expect her manager’s temper to turn into a punishment.

Her 5-year-old daughter was sick and laid out in her office during the call. The moment it became visible, the response was explosive. Her boss erupted. asking what her “kid is doing in the office” in an expletive-packed rant that included the accusations: “You’re not paying attention!. You’re not committed!” He then dismissed remote work as “BS”—while he himself worked from his large house in the country. When Yelland asked what he did when his own child was sick. he replied: “That’s what his mother is for.” Yelland says she hid her daughter from the camera on future videoconference calls and then sent in her resignation notice soon after.

In a second job. the pressure didn’t show up as a single outburst—it arrived as a slow tightening of boundaries until even time off felt contaminated. When she took a day of PTO to support a friend. Yelland told her boss she wouldn’t bring her laptop. When she returned on Monday, she says she felt something was off. “Everyone was off in the corners whispering,” 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 “wasn’t available after hours.” Her boss also demanded that she take all calls within her earshot. and one morning when her car battery drained. she was told to use PTO for the hour missed rather than count it as her lunch hour.

Yelland resigned again. And she links that decision to what she calls the cruelty of “company policies developed for the right reasons, but interpreted in the wrong way.”

The pattern she experienced has now been quantified in research from the King’s College Business School in London and the National University of Singapore. The study surveyed 473 managers in Singapore. Germany. and the U.K. asking them to judge six hypothetical employees who worked remotely under different patterns.

The findings point to a specific contradiction that hurts more than the people it’s ostensibly meant to help. When flexible work is geared toward mothers or parents. managers hold worse perceptions of remote working—on commitments. productivity. team spirit. and promotion opportunities. They also tend to frame remote work as merely a work-life balance perk rather than something that strengthens teams.

But the study also finds that when flexibility is framed as a policy for everyone—not just parents or mothers—more workers are willing to take it up, regardless of parenthood status or gender.

For Heejung Chung. the study’s coauthor and director of King’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s Business School. the results were uncomfortable in a way she didn’t anticipate. “I 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. ” Chung says.

Chung argues that managers already carry biases about mothers’ motivation and productivity. shaped by what she describes as a “low position” to begin with. For fathers. the penalty can be harsher when they choose to work remotely—because remote work makes visible caring responsibilities outside normal working hours. “Working from home exposes their caring responsibilities outside work, which all fathers have, or should have,” Chung explains. “It makes visible what’s otherwise hidden, and in those circumstances, they’re penalized in the same way as mothers.”.

The bigger problem isn’t only that flexible work is judged more negatively. It’s that when flexibility is treated as belonging to a narrow group, it discourages others from asking—and pushes managers to ration or withhold opportunities to work flexibly.

Dana Rogers, VP of people and great work at O.C. Tanner, describes how this spreads through workplace culture. “Employees decide what flexible working behaviors are acceptable based on how others, particularly leaders, act,” she says. If single or childless employees mostly see coworkers with children working from home—or if people leaders use exclusive language when discussing flexible work—employees are less likely to think they can enjoy the same policies. “In the end, everyone loses.”.

The policy problem is unfolding while companies simultaneously pull back. Flexible work in the U.S. has come under pressure from return-to-office demands that land every week: 23% of American employers changed their remote or hybrid policies in the past year. Since January. companies including Instagram. Paramount Skydance. and Home Depot have pushed staff back to the office full time. while others have raised in-office requirements.

The shift isn’t confined to headline mandates. Teleconferencing company Owl Labs calls it “hybrid creep. ” describing a pattern in which hybrid workers increasingly go in four days a week. Fast Company found that many Americans are moving back to big cities to comply with policy changes. At the political level. President Donald Trump has demanded federal workers return in person and mocked home working as time spent playing tennis or golf.

Morale has also taken a hit. Gallup’s 2026 State of the Global Workplace report found that job optimism fell among fully remote workers and remote-capable workers who are now deskbound full time, while it remained flat among hybrid staff.

Once flexibility loses favorability, companies feel more comfortable cutting it back. Deloitte and Zoom have recently done so with parental leave and PTO. The message employees receive. the research suggests. is that flexible work is still treated as a perk for a narrow group rather than a normal part of work design. When companies frame flexibility as special. it becomes easier to trim. harder to defend. and less likely to feel like a right.

Orlando Crowcroft, a London-based journalist and a father of two, describes what that looks like from the inside. He says he has started and been forced to quit jobs at four large tech firms because they were unwilling to accommodate his childcare commitments.

“Me, a father doing childcare, was a bit unexpected,” Crowcroft says. “What was really egregious was their outward public support for mums, dads, and nontraditional family arrangements—yet I experienced the exact opposite.”

Crowcroft says managers flagged within six weeks of starting each role—two of which were fully remote—that he wasn’t online enough. especially during the school run. He says he was expected to adjust his fixed commitments as a dad. apologized. and tried to be more available while reinforcing those commitments.

To prove he was responsive, Crowcroft began screenshotting his Slack messages. “When doing it, I just thought: This is madness.”

Now working for himself. he says he’s unlikely to take another in-office role. partly because he enjoys being a freelancer and partly because of what he calls the chronic lack of flexibility he’s witnessed. “When I’ve gone for jobs recently. I’ve been very clear that I have young children. that they might get sick. and that I won’t be available 3 to 5 p.m. five days a week,” he says. “Having been burned so many times before, I’m really conscious of expectations.”.

Even when employees spell out expectations, Crowcroft says part of the problem can be that policies are too vague. When expectations aren’t clearly defined or consistently communicated. assumptions rush in to fill gaps—and stigma can grow toward remote work itself. even when flexibility is supposed to be aimed at parents.

Rogers at O.C. Tanner points to that fear: “They get tied to visible needs rather than equitable programs that are designed to support all employers.” When that happens, Rogers says, others won’t use the policies for fear they seem lazy, that they’re taking advantage, or that they’re less committed.

Businesses, the research and interviews suggest, can still change course. The first step is reframing what “flexibility” is supposed to do. Chung says flexibility shouldn’t be treated as family-specific: “Don’t think about these as family policies. Think of them as global talent recruitment and retention strategies.” She also frames flexible work as a productivity strategy.

Stanford University economist Nick Bloom found that a “2-3” model—two days home and three in office—has no negative impact on productivity and reduces quit rates by 33%. Bloom also found that when employees are satisfied with their level of flexibility. they’re 384% more likely to stay with the organization another year.

The goal, Rogers argues, should be to normalize flexible work through everyday governance: reinforcing use, rewarding it, and making it visible across organizations so employees feel they have control over it. “Everyone feels like they have governance over their work,” Rogers says.

That idea hinges on what employees believe is already possible. O.C. Tanner’s research shows that 68% believe flexibility should be available regardless of the role, marital status, or location.

Crowcroft sees the same message through his own experience. “This is far bigger than just something for parents,” he says. “It’s about a mindset that taps into how we work on a deeper level.”

remote work hybrid work flexible working policies motherhood penalty parental leave return to office managers bias King’s College Business School National University of Singapore O.C. Tanner Deloitte Zoom Owl Labs Gallup Nick Bloom