A matter of perspective

Dear Mr. Pascual,

Upon reading your article on Aug. 1, I wonder whether the employer will still hesitate to hire a female candidate in light of the recently expanded law on maternity benefits if said female candidate is the “best” person for the job?

It is a matter of perspective. For companies that view female talent as an important element of the diversity that drives creative innovation, a critical connection to the female decision makers who comprise a key customer segment, or a role model for resilience and grace when faced with competing demands under intense pressure, the expanded maternity law is not an obstacle but an opportunity.

For these companies, the maternity leave expansion is an opportunity to deepen their commitment in attracting, retaining and nurturing female talent. If funding is the issue, can a current insurance provider be tasked to develop a product that covers the additional costs for a reasonable premium? Or, as a collective with the industry or local chamber associations, can companies lobby their LGUs to assist in creating a contingency fund from their gender and diversity (GAD) budget? And if productivity is the issue, how can tools and protocols around job sharing or cross-specialization, especially within teams, be instituted?

While this exercise serves female employees now, the company’s experience may be useful when certain male employees may also eventually need support – like dealing with a serious illness that requires an extended absence. 

Companies that view their employees – both females and males – as human capital relish these opportunities to treat their employees as an asset. They invest in systems and policies that support their employees through life changes and challenges so these employees can reach their highest potential as individuals with fulfilling professional and personal lives. Employees that belong to organizations that enable them to become the best versions of themselves not only tend to stay but also offer their best work on the job.

While the probability of a female employee being out for 175 days (for physiological reasons) in a given year is very unlikely, it did happen to a good friend of mine (sans the violence) who works with a medium-sized company. After having miscarried, she got pregnant immediately thereafter. Unable to return to work promptly, she requested for a 30-day extension of her paid maternity leave – which her manager approved, given her track record of performance. Now, two years since her return, as a part of the leadership team, she continues to contribute meaningfully to helping achieve the company’s goals – and does not even consider working for any another company.

Beyond anecdotes like this, I have also found evidence in my research of women employees, when being provided support in the workplace, having greater commitment to making their organization successful.

What about companies that see their employees as human resource? They treat their employees, males and (with RA 11202) even more so females, as an expense – and balk at supporting legal regulations for their financial ramifications even when they promote employees’ human rights to a life of dignity, including in the workplace. They calculate then minimize every centavo it costs, both salary and benefits, to hire employees. And they still wonder, after depleting these human resources, why they get employees who exert bare minimum effort, require so much supervision, and bolt at the next better opportunity. – Dr. Dynah Basuil (Professor of Human Capital Management and Executive Director of the Ramon V. del Rosario Center for Corporate Responsibility at the Asian Institute of Management)