Parental leave vs. competition for clients: Motherhood penalty in competitive work environments




fatherhood, father’s quota, portfolio careers, work-family dynamics, interview study


Objective: This paper explores the role of parental leave for gendered career patterns in individualized, competitive labor markets in Norway, a culturally and politically family-friendly and gender-equal society.

Background: Despite family-friendly policies and little prejudice against mothers, there is a significant gap in wages and careers between mothers and fathers in Norway. This is particularly true in individualized, competitive parts of the labor market, such as finance banking. To understand this pattern, we must examine the institutionalized rules of the game in which portfolio workers, with individual responsibility for their portfolio of clients, operate.

Method: Drawing on in-depth interviews with 30 women and men working in Norwegian business banking, we analyze accounts of parental leave practices and how these bankers navigate the market conditions.

Results: The analyses show how the market structure for finance banking and portfolio careers limits family policies, changing parenthood norms, and firms’ goodwill. Fathers postpone, split, and adapt "leave" to fit clients' needs, thus sustaining their portfolio and career progress. In contrast, mothers, who typically take longer actual leave, give up clients and start from scratch upon return.

Conclusion: Gendered use of parental leave within competitive market conditions leads to gendered career and wage patterns. More individualized competition in the wider labor market may increase inequality in parenting and careers, despite favorable cultural norms and policies, as long as public authorities, firms, and families accept individualized logics and gender-unequal practices of parental leave.


Aarseth, H. (2014). Finanskapitalismens kjønnsromantikk: Næringslivselitens kjønnskomplementære familiekultur [The gender romance of finance capitalism: The complementary gender culture of the business elite]. Tidsskrift for kjønnsforskning [Journal for Gender Research], 38(3–4), 203–218. DOI:

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. DOI:

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4), 441–464. DOI:

Benard, S., Paik, I., & Correll, S. J. (2008). Cognitive bias and the motherhood penalty. Hastings Law Journal, 59, 101–129.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Allen Lane.

Blair-Loy, M. (2003). Competing devotions: Career and family among women executives. Harvard University Press.

Blair-Loy, M. (2009). Work without end? Scheduling flexibility and work-to-family conflict among stockbrokers. Work and Occupations, 36(4), 279–317. DOI:

Boye, K., Halldén, K., & Magnusson, C. (2017). Stagnation only on the surface? The implications of skill and family responsibilities for the gender wage gap in Sweden, 1974–2010. The British Journal of Sociology, 68(4), 595–619. DOI:

Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (2016). Fathers and flexible parental leave. Work, Employment and Society, 30(2), 275–290. DOI:

Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (2019a). Workplace support of fathers’ parental leave use in Norway. Community, Work and Family, 22(1), 43‒57. DOI:

Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (2019b). Fathers’ sense of entitlement to ear-marked and shared parental leave. The Sociological Review, 67(5), 1154–1169. DOI:

Budig, M., Misra, J., & Boeckmann, I. (2016). Work-family policy trade-offs for mothers? Unpacking the cross-national variation in motherhood earnings penalties. Work and Occupations, 43(2), 119–177. DOI:

Bygren, M., Erlandsson, A., & Gähler, M. (2017). Do employers prefer fathers? Evidence from a field experiment testing the gender by parenthood interaction effect on callbacks to job applications. European Sociological Review, 33(3), 337–348. DOI:

Bygren, M., & Gähler, M. (2012). Family formation and men’s and women’s attainment of workplace authority. Social Forces, 90(3), 795–816. DOI:

Bygren, M., Gähler, M., & Magnusson, C. (2020). The constant gap: Parenthood premiums in Sweden 1968–2010. Social Forces, 100(1), 137–168. DOI:

Bütikofer, A., Jensen, S., & Salvanes, K. G. (2018). The role of parenthood on the gender gap among top earners. European Economic Review, 109, 103–123. DOI:

Carlsson, M., & Eriksson, S. (2019). In-group gender bias in hiring: Real-world evidence. Economics Letters, 185, Article e108686. DOI:

Carlsson, M., Finseraas, H., Midtbøen, A. H., & Rafnsdóttir, G. L. (2021). Gender bias in academic recruitment? Evidence from a survey experiment in the Nordic region. European Sociological Review, 37(3), 399–410. DOI:

Cools, S., Markussen, S., & Strøm, M. (2017). Children and careers: How family size affects parents’ labor market outcomes in the long run. Demography, 54(5), 1773–1793. DOI:

Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1339. DOI:

Cornwell, B., & Dokshin, F. A. (2014). The power of integration: Affiliation and cohesion in a diverse elite network. Social Forces, 93(2), 803–831. DOI:

Crompton, R., & Harris, F. (1999). Employment, careers and families: The significance of choice and constraints in women’s lives. In R. Crompton (Ed.), Restructuring gender relations and employment: The decline of the male breadwinner (pp. 128–149). Oxford University Press.

Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2005). The new gender essentialism – domestic family ‘choices’ and their relation to attitudes. British Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 601–620. DOI:

Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701–718. DOI:

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. DOI:

Duncan, S. (2005). Mothering, class and rationality. The Sociological Review, 53(1), 50–76. DOI:

Edlund, J., & Öun, I. (2016). Who should work and who should care? Attitudes towards the desirable division of labor between mothers and fathers in five European countries. Acta Sociologica, 59(2), 151–169. DOI:

Ellingsæter, A. L., Kitterød, R. H., & Lyngstad, J. (2016). Universalising childcare, changing mothers’ attitudes: Policy feedback in Norway. Journal of Social Policy, 1(1), 1‒25. DOI:

Ellingsæter A. L., Kitterød R. H., & Østbakken K. M. (2020). Immigrants and the ‘caring father’: Inequality in access to and utilisation of parental leave in Norway. Ethnicities, 20(5), 959–982. DOI:

Fligstein, N., & Dauter, L. (2007). The sociology of markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 105–128. DOI:

Fourcade, M. (2007). Theories of markets and theories of society. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(8), 1015–1034. DOI:

François, P. (2008). Sociologie des marchés. Armand Colin.

Fuegen, K., Biernat, M., Haines, E., & Deaux, K. (2004). Mothers and fathers in the workplace: How gender and parental status influence judgments of job‐related competence. Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 737–754. DOI:

Gash, V. (2009). Sacrificing their careers for their families? An analysis of the penalty to motherhood in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 93(3), 569–586. DOI:

Goldin, C. (2014). A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review, 104(4), 1091–1119. DOI:

González, M. J., Cortina, C., & Rodríguez, J. (2019). The role of gender stereotypes in hiring: A field experiment. European Sociological Review, 35(2), 187–204. DOI:

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Introduction to applied thematic analysis. Applied Thematic Analysis, 3(20), 1–21. DOI:

Hakim, C. (2000). Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century: Preference theory. Oxford University Press.

Halrynjo, S., & S. T. Lyng (2009). Preferences, constraints or schemas of devotion? Exploring Norwegian mothers’ withdrawals from high-commitment careers. British Journal of Sociology, 60(2), 321–343. DOI:

Halrynjo, S., & Lyng, S. T. (2017). Fathers’ parental leave and work–family division in Norwegian elite professions. In B. Liebig & M. Oechsle (Eds.), Fathers in work organizations: Inequalities and capabilities, rationalities and politics (pp. 61–82). Barbara Budrich. DOI:

Halrynjo, S., Kjos, H. L., & Torjussen, S. A. A. (2019). Kvinner og karriere i finans: Får ikke, kan ikke eller vil ikke? [Women and career in finance: Not allowed, not able, not willing?], Rapport 7. Institutt for samfunnsforskning.

Halrynjo, S., & Fekjær, S. B. (2020). Kjønn, karriere og omsorgsansvar blant økonomer: Likestilte idealer-kjønnsskjeve mønstre. [Gender, career and care responsibilities among economists: Equal ideals, gender-biased patterns], Rapport 9. Institutt for samfunnsforskning.

Halrynjo, S., Kitterød, R. H., Mangset, M., & Skorge, Ø. S. (2022). CORE næringslivsstudie – kjønnsbalanse på toppen i næringslivet: Hindringer og muligheter [CORE Corporate Study – Gender balance at the top of the business sector: Constraints and possibilities], Rapport 4. Institutt for samfunnsforskning.

Hardoy, I., Schøne, P., & Østbakken, K. M. (2017). Children and the gender gap in management. Labour Economics, 47, 124–137. DOI:

Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 189–198. DOI:

Hipp, L. (2020). Do hiring practices penalize women and benefit men for having children? Experimental evidence from Germany. European Sociological Review, 36(2), 250–264. DOI:

Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2004). The time divide: Work, family, and gender inequality. Harvard University Press. DOI:

Joyce, Y., & S. P. Walker. (2015). Gender essentialism and occupational segregation in insolvency practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 41–60. DOI:

Karu, M., & Tremblay D.-G. (2018). Fathers on parental leave: An analysis of rights and take-up in 29 countries. Community, Work & Family, 21(3), 344–362, DOI:

Lin, K.-H., & Neely, M. T. (2017). Gender, parental status, and the wage premium in finance. Social Currents, 4(6), 535–555. DOI:

Lupu, I. (2012). Approved routes and alternative paths: The construction of women’s careers in large accounting firms: Evidence from the French Big Four. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(4–5), 351–369. DOI:

Magnusson, C., & Nermo, M. (2017). Gender, parenthood and wage differences: The importance of time-consuming job characteristics. Social Indicators Research, 131(2), 797–816. DOI:

Mayring, Philipp (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20.

Meil, G., Romero-Balsas, P., & Castrillo-Bustamante, C. (2019) The effectiveness of corporate gender-equality plans in improving leave provisions for fathers in Spain. Community, Work & Family, 22(1), 96–110. DOI:

Neely, M. T. (2020). The portfolio ideal worker: Insecurity and inequality in the new economy. Qualitative Sociology, 43, 271–296. DOI:

Quadlin, N. (2018). The mark of a woman’s record: Gender and academic performance in hiring. American Sociological Review, 83(2), 331–360. DOI:

Schou, L. (2019). Fornuft og følelser – En studie av mors og fars uttak av foreldrepenger. [Reason and emotions – A study of mothers’ and fathers’ use of parental leave], NAV-rapport 2. Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet.

Stone, P. (2007). Opting out: Why women really quit careers and head home. University of California Press. DOI:

Swedberg, R. (1998). Max Weber’s manifesto in economic sociology. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 39(2), 379–398. DOI:

Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2008). The reversal of gender inequalities in higher education: An ongoing trend. In: OECD Higher Education to 2030. Vol. 1: Demography (pp. 265–298). Paris: OECD. DOI:

Weber, M. (1992). Economy and society. University of California Press.




How to Cite

Halrynjo, S., & Mangset, M. (2022). Parental leave vs. competition for clients: Motherhood penalty in competitive work environments. Journal of Family Research, 34(3), 932–957.