Activities for Women's Empowerment: Supporting People Returning From Leave
Activities for Women's Empowerment: Supporting People Returning From Leave
Organizations invest considerable effort in recruiting women, developing them, and running programs about progression, and then lose a meaningful proportion of that at a single predictable point: the return from parental leave.
It's the least programmed moment in most careers and one of the most consequential. I'm Magical Katrina, an award winning magician and mentalist who speaks at women's events, and I want to look at returners as a subject for activities for women's empowerment, since it's where the gap between policy and practice is widest.
Policy Is Usually Fine, Practice Isn't
Start with the distinction, since organizations point at the policy when asked. Most have reasonable parental leave provisions, a returners statement, and a line about flexible working, and none of that determines what actually happens.
What happens is decided by a manager, a team, and a set of small decisions nobody records: who picked up the work, whether it goes back, which projects came up while somebody was away, and what assumptions were made about what they'd want now. Among activities for women's empowerment, examining that gap produces more than another policy review.
The Work Gets Reallocated and Stays Reallocated
The commonest mechanism, and it's rarely malicious. Somebody goes on leave, their work is distributed among colleagues, those colleagues get good at it, and when the person returns there's no natural moment to take it back.
So they return to a diminished version of their role without anybody deciding that should happen. A year later their scope is smaller, which shows up in a performance review as reduced impact. Asking explicitly what goes back, and when, before somebody returns is a small conversation that prevents a quiet demotion.
Protective Decisions Remove Opportunities
The failure with the best intentions, and worth naming clearly. A manager thinks somebody returning won't want the travel, the stretch assignment, the client with difficult hours, or the project that might run late, and doesn't offer it.
That decision is made kindly and it removes a choice the person should have had. It also compounds, since the opportunities not offered are exactly the ones that lead to progression. The fix is straightforward: offer it and let them decline. Assuming on somebody's behalf is the single most common way a manager damages a returner's career while believing they're being considerate.
Ambition Is Assumed to Have Changed
Related and worth checking rather than presuming. Some people return with different priorities, some return with exactly the same ones, and some return considerably more determined than before.
You cannot tell from outside, and the assumption defaults unhelpfully. A direct conversation about what somebody wants next, held a few weeks after they're back rather than on their first day, resolves it. That conversation is free and it's rarely held, which means organizations frequently operate on a guess for years.
Keep in Touch Before the Return
Practical and low effort. Somebody returning after several months away has missed reorganizations, new joiners, changed priorities, and systems that were updated while they were gone.
Optional contact before the return, a note about what's changed, and an offer to have a conversation a week beforehand make the first day considerably less disorienting. It should be genuinely optional and initiated by the organization rather than requiring the person to ask. Among practical steps, this is the cheapest and one of the most appreciated.
The First Weeks Are Where It's Decided
Worth concentrating effort on. How somebody experiences their first month back shapes whether they stay, how they're perceived, and what they believe about their prospects.
That argues for a deliberate return rather than an assumed one: a conversation about scope in week one, a check in at a month, clarity about what's changed, and a manager who's been prompted to think about it. None of that is a program, and all of it is more effective than a returners workshop held six months later.
Phased Returns Need to Be Real
Worth being honest about, since they frequently aren't. A phased return where somebody works reduced hours and carries their full workload is not a phased return, it's the same job compressed, and people notice immediately.
If the hours reduce, the work has to reduce with them, which requires a manager to actively remove things rather than hoping. That's the difference between a policy that helps and one that's technically honored while making the return harder than no arrangement would have been.
Returner Cohorts Work
One thing that genuinely functions as a program. People returning within a few months of each other have a great deal in common and almost no contact, since they're scattered across teams.
Putting them in touch, informally and without a curriculum, produces peer support that nothing organizational replicates. It costs an email and a room, or a video call for a dispersed organization. Among activities for women's empowerment aimed at returners, connecting them to each other is the highest return item available and among the least commonly done.
It Isn't Only Women
Worth stating, since the framing affects the outcome. Fathers and non birthing partners take leave too, and in organizations where they're expected not to, the whole burden of adjustment falls on women by default.
Making returner support genuinely available to everybody, and making leave itself genuinely takeable by everybody, addresses the underlying pattern rather than only its effects. That's a longer piece of work than a returners program and it's the one that changes the numbers.
Where My Work Fits
Briefly, since it's adjacent. I perform magic and mentalism and speak about building a career in a field that has been overwhelmingly male, including what being consistently underestimated actually teaches.
For an organization running a returners cohort or a network event, that tends to work as something genuinely enjoyable at a gathering that would otherwise be earnest, and it reaches people who've had enough of sessions about barriers. It's an addition to substantive work rather than a substitute for it, which for this subject particularly is worth saying plainly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does the return matter so much?
Because it's the least programmed moment in most careers and one of the most consequential, and because most organizations have reasonable policies and considerably weaker practice. What actually happens is decided by a manager, a team, and small unrecorded decisions about work, opportunities, and assumptions.
What's the commonest thing that goes wrong?
Work reallocated during leave that never comes back, since colleagues get good at it and there's no natural moment to return it. The person comes back to a diminished role without anybody deciding that, and a year later their reduced scope shows up in a review as reduced impact. Ask explicitly what goes back and when.
What do managers get wrong with good intentions?
Making protective decisions, since a manager who assumes somebody won't want the travel, the stretch assignment, or the project that might run late simply doesn't offer it. That removes a choice the person should have had, and those are exactly the opportunities that lead to progression. Offer it and let them decline.
Should we assume priorities have changed?
No, since some people return with different priorities, some with identical ones, and some considerably more determined, and you can't tell from outside. A direct conversation about what somebody wants next, a few weeks after they're back rather than on day one, resolves it and is rarely held.
What helps before somebody returns?
Optional contact, a note about what's changed, and an offer to talk a week beforehand, since someone returning after months away has missed reorganizations, new joiners, changed priorities, and updated systems. It should be genuinely optional and initiated by the organization rather than requiring the person to ask.
Are phased returns working?
Frequently not, since a phased return where somebody works reduced hours and carries a full workload is the same job compressed, and people notice immediately. If the hours reduce, the work has to reduce with them, which requires a manager to actively remove things rather than hoping it balances.
What actually works as a program?
Returner cohorts, since people returning within a few months of each other have a great deal in common and almost no contact, being scattered across teams. Putting them in touch informally produces peer support nothing organizational replicates, and it costs an email and a room or a video call.
Is this only about women?
No, and the framing matters, since fathers and non birthing partners take leave too, and where they're expected not to, the whole burden of adjustment falls on women by default. Making support and leave genuinely available to everybody addresses the underlying pattern rather than only its effects.
Program the Return, Not the Workshop
The most useful activities for women's empowerment around parental leave aren't sessions, they're the small decisions nobody currently makes deliberately: what work goes back and when, which opportunities get offered rather than assumed away, whether a phased return actually reduces the workload, and whether anybody has asked what the person wants next.
Add a returner cohort so people have each other, make leave genuinely takeable by everybody, and you've addressed the point where careers most predictably stall, which no program held six months later can reach.
Reach out if you're planning something for a returners network, and I'm glad to talk about what would suit.