Employer attitudes to family leave: previous research

This study builds on and extends previous literature by examining how economic, normative, and moral justifications intersect in shaping employer (non-)support for maternity leave. Beginning with economic perspectives, two theories are prominent. Human capital theory suggests that maternity leave interrupts skill accumulation, leading employers to undervalue or avoid hiring women (Becker, Reference Becker1983; Mincer and Polachek, Reference Mincer and Polachek1974). Statistical discrimination theory (Phelps, Reference Phelps1972) posits that, lacking complete information about individual workers, employers rely on group-level generalisations. In the context of maternity leave, women of childbearing age are statistically more likely than men to take parental leave. Thus, to minimise perceived risks of absence or productivity loss, employers treat women as a ‘risk’ category for future leave-taking, which may disadvantage women in hiring and promotion decisions. Because such discrimination targets women as a group – regardless of individual plans or productivity – individual women with no intentions of having children can also face exclusionary treatment (Glass and Fodor, Reference Glass and Fodor2011; Mandel, Reference Mandel2012).

The nature of workers’ roles and broader institutional factors may amplify these perceived economic risks. Employers who make heavy investments in workers’ skills may be particularly discriminatory if they anticipate low returns on such investments (Estévez-Abe, Reference Estévez-Abe2006; Mandel and Semyonov, Reference Mandel and Semyonov2006). Consequently, higher training costs, greater firm-specific knowledge requirements, and potential difficulties securing suitable replacements may heighten leave-related discrimination in specialist, managerial, and skilled occupations (Estévez-Abe, Reference Estévez-Abe2006; Mandel and Semyonov, Reference Mandel and Semyonov2006). This aligns with the ‘disruptiveness’ hypothesis, which posits that managers assess leave requests based on their anticipated operational impact (Den Dulk et al., Reference Den Dulk, Peper, Černigoj Sadar, Lewis, Smithson and Van Doorne-Huiskes2011). Discrimination may also be greater in fast-evolving sectors requiring continuous upskilling, like technology or digital marketing, where possible skill attrition during maternity leaves sparks particular concern (Glass and Fodor, Reference Glass and Fodor2018). In some contexts, strong employment protection legislation may further compound these concerns by limiting employers’ flexibility to hire temporary replacements during leaves (Estévez-Abe, Reference Estévez-Abe2006).

However, other research suggests that economic arguments can instead lead to more supportive stances. In more competitive labour markets, supportive leave practices can aid recruitment and retention (Brinton and Mun, Reference Brinton and Mun2016; Glass and Fodor, Reference Glass and Fodor2018; Chung, Reference Chung2019). Framed as a business strategy, a supportive approach can boost loyalty, morale, and productivity (Den Dulk et al., Reference Den Dulk, Peper, Černigoj Sadar, Lewis, Smithson and Van Doorne-Huiskes2011; Been et al., Reference Been, Den Dulk and Van Der Lippe2016; Chung, Reference Chung2019). This ‘business case’ reflects an instrumental logic: support granted not for its own sake, but because it enhances performance. Contrary to human capital theory, some studies suggest employers may be more supportive of leave-taking by ‘valuable’ and hard-to-replace workers, aligning with ‘dependency’ arguments (Den Dulk et al., Reference Den Dulk, Peper, Černigoj Sadar, Lewis, Smithson and Van Doorne-Huiskes2011).

Beyond cost-benefit calculations, normative factors can shape employer responses, too. Ideal worker norms cast committed employees as continuously available and unencumbered by caregiving (Acker, Reference Acker1990; Williams, Reference Williams2000), while cultural scripts of intensive motherhood (Hays, Reference Hays1996) reinforce expectations that caregiving is a woman’s primary role. By disrupting the ideal of the ever-present worker while reinforcing gendered expectations of motherhood, maternity leave may lead employers to view leave-takers as less committed, less reliable, or more difficult to accommodate, particularly in roles requiring constant visibility, leadership presence, or long hours (Correll et al., Reference Correll, Benard and Paik2007).

Alternatively, normative pressures can foster a supportive stance. Employers may seek social legitimacy by aligning with public expectations for work-life balance (Been et al., Reference Been, Den Dulk and Van Der Lippe2016; Chung, Reference Chung2019; Daiger von Gleichen, Reference Daiger von Gleichen2025). Such normative isomorphism is most evident in the public sector and large firms, which face greater public scrutiny and reputational pressures. Larger organisations with more resources and established Human Resource systems may also be better equipped to implement leave policies (Chung, Reference Chung2020).

Conversely, support may be rooted in moral or ethical commitments. For instance, Been et al. (Reference Been, Den Dulk and Van Der Lippe2016) found that top managers in Dutch organisations described a ‘social duty’ to accommodate workers’ caregiving needs. Similarly, financial sector managers in the Netherlands and Slovenia framed support for working mothers as ‘the right thing to do’ (Den Dulk et al., Reference Den Dulk, Peper, Černigoj Sadar, Lewis, Smithson and Van Doorne-Huiskes2011). These beliefs can operate independently of business interests, reflecting deeper values about fairness and employee wellbeing.

Overall, this body of work advances our understanding of how economic, normative, and moral factors shape employer support for versus opposition to family policies. It also touches on how sectoral pressures, institutional contexts, organisational characteristics, and workers’ roles can moderate such dynamics. Extending this work, this study develops a novel typology of employer attitudes showing how economic, normative, and moral perspectives can coexist and interact within an employer’s rationalising of support for – or resistance to – maternity leave.

The British context

The study draws on interviews with managers across England, Scotland, and Wales. In the UK, women can take up to fifty-two weeks of maternity leave, with Statutory Maternity Pay covering thirty-nine weeks. For the first six weeks, pay is 90 per cent of earnings, followed by the lower of 90 per cent of earnings or a flat-rate benefit for the remaining weeks. In 2015, when the interviews took place, this flat rate was £139.58 per week (Atkinson et al., Reference Atkinson, O’Brien, Koslowski, Koslowski, Blum, Dobrotić, Kaufman and Moss2022). In 2013, around two-thirds of UK workplaces offered no enhanced maternity pay over and above statutory amounts, with a further 19 per cent of employers not knowing whether they did or not; by 2018, these figures had reduced somewhat, to 55 per cent and 28 per cent, respectively (Department for Business and Trade, 2023). Employees ineligible for Statutory Maternity Pay may get Maternity Allowance, which is the lower of the flat-rate allowance or 90 per cent of earnings for all thirty-nine weeks. Leave-takers keep statutory pay even if they do not return, and employers are reimbursed 92 to 103 per cent of statutory pay from the government, depending on company size. Upon return, leave-takers are entitled to the same Statutory Sick Pay as other employees (Atkinson et al., Reference Atkinson, O’Brien, Koslowski, Koslowski, Blum, Dobrotić, Kaufman and Moss2022).

The British context provides a crucial case for examining employer attitudes toward maternity leave. Some scholars argue that its highly flexible labour market and comparatively weak employment protections may reduce employers’ hesitancy to hire women of childbearing age, since dismissal is a more viable option if maternity leave presents challenges (Estevez-Abe, Reference Estévez-Abe2006). Yet, it may be counterargued that such flexibility simply shifts the locus of discrimination from hiring decisions to post-leave treatment: that is, while employers may hire (potential) leave-takers, they may be more willing to dismiss or sideline employees who take leave (e.g., occupational downgrading) when they perceive leave-taking as inconvenient or costly. Compounding this, UK statutory provisions grant line-managers significant discretion in implementing maternity leave, heightening the risk of such discrimination (Den Dulk et al., Reference Den Dulk, Peper, Černigoj Sadar, Lewis, Smithson and Van Doorne-Huiskes2011). For instance, while UK managers cannot legally deny maternity leave, they can reject requests for flexible working on return based on business grounds, such as operational need, staffing levels, or impacts on service delivery. Further, enforcement of anti-discrimination protections remains weak: three in four UK mothers report negative or potentially discriminatory treatment during pregnancy, maternity leave, or upon return, with 11 per cent feeling forced to quit their jobs (Adams et al., Reference Adams, Winterbotham, Oldfield, McLeish, Large, Stuart, Murphy, Rossiter and Selner2016). These factors underscore the importance of understanding how workplace-specific logics and constraints shape employer views on maternity leave and potentially lead to different outcomes even within the same institutional setting.

Results: a typology of employers

Risk-averse

A minority of employers (N = 5) expressed limited support (Table 1). Risk-averse employers sought to minimise the perceived economic (direct financial costs), moral (suspected employee dishonesty), and normative (regulatory scrutiny or departure from ideal worker and mothering norms) costs associated with maternity leave. One even self-identified as such: “It’s us being so risk averse” (Richard, general manager, mid-sized communications firm, no children). These employers, of varied genders and parental statuses, worked mainly in smaller private-sector companies and had less exposure to maternity leave than others (Table 2). Notably, three of the four business owners in the sample fell into this category (Table A1, Appendix A, Supplementary Material).

Table 2.

Employer groups by key characteristics

Note: For further details, see Table A1 (Appendix A, Supplemental Material), which provides information on these characteristics by participant.

Economic arguments dominated risk-averse employers’ reasoning. They prioritised immediate cost-cutting and operational efficiency, framing maternity leave as a financial burden and a source of disruption due to the need for cover staff. They emphasised ‘hidden’ costs not reimbursed by the state – such as agency fees or other costs for recruiting replacements – and viewed leave as a drain on company resources. Janet (partner, small real estate business, no children) exemplified this perspective. She described maternity-related expenses as unjustifiable ‘extras’, proposing that leave be capped at one or two children per woman. She further dismissed the statutory one-year entitlement as ‘too much’ and openly admitted she would practice overt discrimination against a pregnant applicant: ‘Yes, I would discriminate against a pregnant applicant… I wouldn’t say anything to her face, but I wouldn’t recruit her’. Her perception of leave as inherently burdensome applied across all roles: ‘I don’t think the [skill] level matters’.

Moral arguments reinforced risk-averse employers’ cost-cutting priorities. They framed their reluctance to support maternity leave as fair and necessary, drawing on moralised assessments of leave-takers as dishonest and unreliable, coinciding with a culture of mistrust. Several believed that women exploited paid sick leave to unfairly prolong absences: ‘Because they get paid for it… Sick notes at the end of the twelve-month period, I believe it’s not necessarily needed’ (Emily, head of HR, large manufacturer, mother). Relatedly, risk-averse employers assumed that women rarely intended to return yet feigned that they would so they could continue accessing statutory pay: ‘There is a charade – because of paid maternity leave no-one is going to say they’re not coming back as [it] could affect their pay’ (Richard). Similarly, Julie (owner, mid-sized cleaning business, mother) said, ‘It is inevitable for us that most women will not return’. Thus, they saw leave not as a temporary absence but as a probable permanent loss that was unjust to employers given training costs: ‘It’s reasonable to expect somebody after they’ve gone on a period training to do some work for you at least before they disappear on your money’ (Janet).

Normative arguments surfaced in reference to anti-discrimination laws and maternity leave regulation. Despite, as aforementioned, some stated willingness to discriminate, risk-averse employers described maternity leave regulations as ‘a bit complicated’ (Richard) and as favouring leave-takers at employers’ expense: ‘It sometimes feels like the pendulum has swung too far from employers to employees, especially as you can now accrue holiday pay on top of maternity leave. So, they can be off for a year and then they tag on twenty-one days’ holiday’ (Julie). They used words such as ‘uncertainty’, ‘frightened’, ‘worry’, ‘risky’, and ‘careful’ when dealing with pregnant employees and maternity leave: ‘We know how easy it is to be taken to tribunal’ (Julie). Such language suggests more than a ‘rational’ concern about legal liability: it reflects a normative discomfort with shifting cultural expectations. Risk-averse employers seemingly felt vulnerable or scrutinised in a context where maternity rights increasingly constrain managerial discretion and fair treatment of leave-takers is legally mandated and culturally expected, pointing to an underlying resistance to evolving workplace norms they may not fully endorse.

This group further justified their stance through normative appeals to ideal worker and ideal mother expectations. Richard invoked the former, framing returnees as emotionally fragile and insufficiently available against expectations of full commitment and flexibility: ‘Being separated from their child for the first significant time. They can be fragile initially. Also, they are often very time sensitive. You can’t arrange a meeting with them for 5pm’. Graham (pub landlord, father) relied on ideal mother norms, which prescribe caregiving as the primary responsibility of women – but not men (Hays, Reference Hays1996). Hence, his objection was not to women’s employment per se, but to what he saw as women’s moral failure to fully embrace motherhood, since maternity leave entailed a temporary break rather than permanent withdrawal from employment: ‘I am really not into maternity leave… If you don’t want to look after children, don’t have them’. His reasoning thus combined normative ideals of maternal devotion with moral judgement, framing working mothers as deficient for not ‘opting out’ to become stay-at-home mothers.

Concluding discussion

Of the thirty-seven employers interviewed, twenty-three expressed views suggestive of direct or indirect discrimination against pregnant women and maternity leave-takers. These included explicit admissions of illegal hiring practices, reluctance to hire or promote women, and implicit biases that could disadvantage mothers’ career progression. A widely accepted argument in the family policy literature attributes such discrimination and bias to concerns about financial costs and the need for cover labour (e.g., Mandel and Semyonov, Reference Mandel and Semyonov2006; Mandel, Reference Mandel2011). Other research highlights how normative expectations and moral commitments can also shape – and sometimes strengthen – employer support for leave-taking (e.g., Den Dulk et al., Reference Den Dulk, Peper, Černigoj Sadar, Lewis, Smithson and Van Doorne-Huiskes2011; Been et al., Reference Been, Den Dulk and Van Der Lippe2016; Glass and Fodor, Reference Glass and Fodor2018; Daiger von Gleichen, Reference Daiger von Gleichen2025).

This study contributes to the debate by analysing how British managers rationalise their support for or resistance to maternity leave in practice. It offers a typology of employer orientations – risk-averse, business-first, and value-driven – that systematically captures how economic, normative, and moral reasoning are combined, prioritised, and instrumentalised. In doing so, it challenges the assumption that moral reasoning always aligns with support for family policies and inclusive practices. Risk-averse employers – who essentially function as ‘antagonists’ (Korpi, Reference Korpi2006) of maternity leave by opposing it and offering limited support – mobilise moral arguments to justify discrimination and exclusion. Besides viewing maternity leave as an economic burden and structural disruption to ideal worker norms, they construct it as morally objectionable: unfair, undeserved, or even deceptive. This aligns with findings that people more readily express bias when they perceive it as morally justified (Tilcsik, Reference Tilcsik2021), and offers a new lens on how discriminatory practices are rationalised in workplaces.

Risk-averse employers further draw on normative arguments to reinforce their resistance. Contrary to expectations that shifting cultural norms and expanding social rights push employers towards greater support for workers’ family lives (e.g., Chung, Reference Chung2019, Reference Chung2020; Daiger von Gleichen, Reference Daiger von Gleichen2025), this study finds that some actively resist such change, even admitting to discriminatory practices. Risk-averse employers’ narratives reflect a discomfort with regulatory obligations and evolving expectations around gender and work. Their invocation of ideal worker and ‘good mother’ norms place women in a double bind: condemned as unreliable for taking leave – especially if they do not return – yet judged as neglectful mothers and moral failures if they do return. These contradictory expectations risk legitimising mothers’ labour market exclusion. They also expose the limits of regulatory frameworks in challenging deeply ingrained beliefs about who belongs in the workplace and under what conditions, suggesting limits to statutory protections for achieving substantive equality.

While risk-averse employers engaged in often overt and unapologetic forms of discrimination, business-first employers also exhibited discriminatory behaviour – albeit more selectively, depending on leave-takers’ roles. Business-first employers acted as policy ‘consenters’ (Korpi, Reference Korpi2006) when support for leave aligned with business interests, typically for lower-level or routine roles. However, they became ‘antagonists’ when they viewed leave as disruptive – as for senior, specialist, or client-facing roles – citing high costs (economic) and deviations from ideal worker expectations (normative) as barriers to support. Discrimination was sometimes overt, such as downgrading returnees’ occupational standing; other times, it was subtler, like granting flexibility only to returnees in lower-status positions. Business-first employers framed these decisions as pragmatic and business-driven, referencing what they saw as rational concerns, like the exhaustion of early motherhood or operational or financial constraints. Regardless of intent, such practices still restrict women’s access to career progression and reinforce occupational inequality.

Conversely, value-driven employers functioned most closely as maternity leave ‘protagonists’ (Korpi, Reference Korpi2006), exhibiting no discriminatory attitudes. While acknowledging business benefits, their support was primarily grounded in ethical principles of fairness, employer duty, and employee wellbeing, echoing prior research (e.g., Den Dulk et al., Reference Den Dulk, Peper, Černigoj Sadar, Lewis, Smithson and Van Doorne-Huiskes2011; Been et al., Reference Been, Den Dulk and Van Der Lippe2016). A distinctive contribution of this study, however, is the identification of an additional driver of support: the affective-personal dimensions of manager–employee relationships. Many value-driven employers described ‘multiplex’ ties with staff, which blend personal and professional bonds (Methot and Rosado-Solomon, Reference Methot, Rosado-Solomon, Brass and Borgatti2019) and apparently deepened a sense of moral responsibility toward maternity leave-takers. This relational dimension extends existing accounts of managerial attitudes by foregrounding interpersonal dynamics alongside structural and normative influences.

While such multiplex relationships can foster greater empathy and flexibility, their significance raises concerns about equity. Women from marginalised backgrounds may face barriers to developing such ties. For instance, Nelson (Reference Nelson2019) found that Black minority teachers tended to form ‘thinner’ multiplex relationships than their White colleagues, due in part to geographic distance and lower participation in informal workplace networks. These dynamics align with relational inequality theory (Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent-Holt, Reference Tomaskovic-Devey and Avent-Holt2019), which argues that social interactions and the uneven distribution of relational resources can reproduce organisational inequalities. Thus, although statutory maternity leave policies aim to ensure universal entitlements, access to meaningful support in practice may depend on informal relationships that reflect and reinforce broader social hierarchies.

Differences in employer attitudes and underlying rationales may partly indicate variations in company and managerial characteristics. Risk-averse employers had typically handled fewer maternity leave cases than the other groups, suggesting a lack of exposure potentially fuels misconceptions or ignorance about its productive benefits (Stumbitz et al., Reference Stumbitz, Lewis and Rouse2018). This group also included three of the four owner-managers in the sample, likely reflecting owners’ vested interest in their organisations’ immediate costs and survival. Further, most risk-averse employers and a large share of business-first ones came from smaller, private-sector firms. In these companies, smaller workforces, less developed HR policies, and tighter financial margins may make it harder to manage maternity costs, redistribute workloads, navigate employment law, or accommodate perceived deviations from ideal worker norms (Stumbitz et al., Reference Stumbitz, Lewis and Rouse2018). Indeed, large organisations dominate the value-driven group, consistent with findings that bigger firms are better resourced and more responsive to institutional and societal expectations (e.g., Been et al., Reference Been, Den Dulk and Van Der Lippe2016; Brinton and Mun, Reference Brinton and Mun2016; Chung, Reference Chung2020).

Striking contrasts also emerged by gender and role. Business-first managers were mainly men and fathers, whereas value-driven employers were predominantly women and mothers. This may indicate how female managers often bring an added layer of ethical support that challenges ideal worker norms, likely shaped by their own lived experiences. Additionally, business-first managers were mainly operational, senior, or executive managers, who typically prioritise operational continuity and financial performance (economic arguments). Value-driven managers instead comprised more HR managers, who usually focus on employee wellbeing, workplace culture, and compliance with legal and normative standards (moral and normative arguments).

While the study highlights diversity in employer attitudes toward maternity leave, its qualitative design limits the extent to which findings can be generalised. Building on the patterns identified here, future research using large-scale, representative data could explore associations between employer characteristics and managerial interpretations of leave on a broader scale. Meanwhile, studies on employer attitudes toward fathers who take leave could help determine whether discrimination stems specifically from gendered assumptions about mothers’ commitment and productivity, or from broader concerns about leave-taking regardless of the leave-taker’s gender.

Limitations aside, the findings carry important policy implications. Arguably, state support to offset some of the non-statutory costs of maternity leave could help reduce discrimination. Targeting support at small businesses is especially important, given that many problematised such ‘hidden’ costs - and 99 percent of all UK firms are small businesses (Department for Business, 2024). Increasing men’s leave uptake through well-paid, non-transferable leaves for fathers could further reduce discrimination by repositioning all workers as potential caregivers, while knowledge-sharing technologies and more standardised procedures could ease the burden of covering specialist roles (Goldin, Reference Goldin2014). Additionally, greater hostility among employers with less exposure to maternity leaves raises the need for government-backed training programmes or advisory services that challenge misinformation and improve managers’ knowledge of and confidence in navigating often complex leave processes. Finally, the importance of personal manager–employee relationships highlights the need for cultural change beyond formal policies. Broader initiatives, such as employee resource groups and leaders modelling supportive behaviour, can help foster empathy, inclusion, and relational trust within workplaces.