However, two limitations of Shipman (2009) have become apparent. First, she underestimated the persistence of the “flexibility stigma” (Munsch, 2016), where workers who use flexible arrangements are penalized in promotions and perceived as less committed. While more companies offer flexibility, the implicit bias against those who use it remains stubborn. Second, her individualistic “negotiate for yourself” approach fails to address structural inequities such as the gender pay gap or the lack of affordable childcare. Later scholarship suggests that without policy interventions (e.g., paid family leave, subsidized care), even the most savvy individual negotiations cannot achieve systemic change.
Assessing the contemporary relevance of Shipman’s 2009 framework, one finds both vindication and evolution. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-2022 dramatically accelerated remote and hybrid work, making Shipman’s advocacy for telecommuting and results-only work environments seem prescient. By 2024, over 40% of U.S. jobs with a college degree offered some form of flexible arrangement (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023). Furthermore, the “Great Resignation” saw women leaving jobs in record numbers, often citing burnout and inflexible cultures—exactly the dynamic Shipman warned about fifteen years earlier.
Pedulla, D. S. (2016). Penalized or protected? Gender and the consequences of nonstandard and mismatched employment histories. American Sociological Review , 81(2), 262–289. shipman 2009 word format
Critically, Shipman (2009) distinguished her approach from earlier feminist workplace models. Unlike the “lean in” philosophy that would later gain prominence, Shipman did not suggest that women needed to adopt more assertive, linear career trajectories. Instead, she championed what she called “smart flexibility”—using economic leverage to create customized roles. She supported this with survey data indicating that over 60% of high-achieving women desired reduced schedules or remote work, but only a fraction felt empowered to ask for it. Her contribution was thus both descriptive (identifying the gap) and prescriptive (providing negotiation scripts and mindset shifts).
Munsch, C. L. (2016). Flexible work, flexible penalties: The effect of gender, childcare, and type of request on the flexibility bias. Social Forces , 94(4), 1567–1591. However, two limitations of Shipman (2009) have become
Shipman’s primary argument in Womenomics (Shipman & Kay, 2009) rested on three observable trends. First, she noted that a growing number of highly educated women were voluntarily leaving or reducing their participation in full-time corporate careers, not due to lack of ambition, but because of rigid workplace cultures. Second, she argued that the 2008-2009 recession had fundamentally shifted corporate power dynamics, making employers more receptive to flexible work arrangements as a cost-saving and talent-retention strategy. Third, she proposed a new definition of success: one where women could “write their own rules” by negotiating for results-oriented work, telecommuting, and alternative career paths without apologizing for prioritizing family or personal well-being.
Shipman, C., & Kay, K. (2009). Womenomics: Write your own rules for success . HarperCollins. a medical or historical researcher)
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). American Time Use Survey — 2022 results . U.S. Department of Labor. Note: If you intended a different “Shipman 2009” (e.g., a medical or historical researcher), please clarify the full name and field, and I will revise the essay accordingly.