The Finance World Has a Dad Problem—And It’s Costing Everyone

Published 15th October 2025

The Finance World Has a Dad Problem—And It’s Costing Everyone

The Finance World Has a Dad Problem—And It’s Costing Everyone

Dad guilt is real. Painfully real. And we’re barely scratching the surface of talking about it.

Last week, I spoke to a candidate who missed his son’s first day of school because his boss scheduled a 9am meeting. When he asked if there was any flexibility—whether he could dial in remotely or move it by just an hour—the answer was a flat “no.” No conversation. No consideration. Just an unequivocal rejection of what should have been a reasonable request.

This wasn’t an isolated incident. Working in finance recruitment, I see this scenario play out far too often. And the implications extend far beyond one disappointed father and one confused child wondering why Dad wasn’t there for such an important milestone.

 

The Invisible Crisis in Finance

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: with the vast majority of senior roles in the finance sector still held by men—many of whom built their careers in an era where being an involved father wasn’t expected or even encouraged—the pressure on the current generation of working dads to achieve any semblance of work-life balance keeps intensifying.

These senior leaders often climbed the ladder during a time when it was assumed their partners would handle everything domestic. They worked 80-hour weeks because someone else was managing school runs, doctor’s appointments, and bedtime routines. That model is not only outdated—it’s actively harmful to retention, diversity, and workplace culture.

The finance industry prides itself on analysing risk and optimising systems. Yet when it comes to supporting working fathers, we’re operating on a fundamentally broken model that’s costing firms in ways they’re only beginning to recognise.

 

The Ripple Effect

When workplaces refuse to support working fathers:

Mothers become the default. Every school event, doctor’s appointment, and childcare emergency falls to women. Not by choice—by systemic pressure. Women’s careers stall while men’s remain uninterrupted, perpetuating the exact gender disparities firms claim they want to eliminate.

Women become the “risky hire.” When only mothers take parental leave or request flexibility, it reinforces the bias that hiring women is a business risk. But if fathers were equally likely to adjust their schedules? The bias loses its foundation.

You lose talented men. High performers who want to be present fathers don’t stick around inflexible cultures. They leave for competitors or exit the sector entirely.

The 1995 mentality persists. When senior leaders demonstrate that face time matters more than output, they’re preserving a workplace model from three decades ago.

 

The Companies getting it right

Forward-thinking firms are:

 

The Business Case is Clear

Let’s speak the language finance understands: return on investment.

Companies that support working fathers see measurable benefits:

 

Breaking the cycle

Here’s the transformative insight: when we normalise fathers being present parents, we stop forcing mothers to choose between career and credibility.

If fathers leave early for school pickup, women no longer stand out. If fathers take extended leave, it’s not uniquely disruptive when women do. If fathers request flexibility, it stops being coded as a “female issue.”

The path to gender equity in finance runs directly through supporting working fathers. You can’t dismantle the maternal wall without addressing the paternal expectations that created it.

 

What Needs to Change

For firms serious about evolving:

  1. Audit your culture, not just policies. Having parental leave on paper means nothing if taking it derails careers.
  2. Model flexibility from the top. Senior leaders must visibly use arrangements and take leave.
  3. Redesign performance metrics. Reward results, not face time.
  4. Make it a diversity issue. Because it is.
  5. Hold managers accountable. Include work-life support in evaluations.

The candidate from last week? He’s interviewing with competitors who explicitly support involved fatherhood. His employer will lose a top performer over a one-hour meeting conflict.

How many more talented people need to walk out before we recognise this isn’t just “nice to have”—it’s a business imperative?