Mothers trying to re-enter the workplace need to combat backwards attitudes, writes Jim Bright.

Sophie is concerned that her time out of the workforce raising a family may be counting against her at interviews.

She writes, "I have over 17 years' experience within hospitality management. My last position was made redundant, which I was happy to accept, and I have had three wonderful years being a full-time mother. My children are now 16 and 12 and I wish to re-enter the workforce but have been faced with, 'Why have you done nothing'? I have done more than many of these so-called recruiters in the last three years.

"Any suggestions on how to retrain their way of thinking? I have a fabulous skill set and shall offer a mature and calming attitude to any position offered.

"Also, I am applying for positions with an interstate move attached; this is not hard, yet it seems to be again a concept that recruiters are unable to grasp."

It beggars belief that women still contend with this neanderthal thinking from some recruiters and employers. It is crazy that Sophie's extensive relevant experience is being ignored and that so much emphasis is being placed on the past three years.

Indeed, it seems so crazy, the first thing I would want to establish is whether the recruiters' feedback is genuine - whether the three-year gap is being used as a convenient excuse and that there is some other deficiency in her applications.

Taken on face value, though, the issue is best addressed by Sophie altering how she presents her work history rather than relying on educating the recruiters.

Until we reach a time when recruiters are legally obliged to provide detailed written reasons for rejections, there will always be a temptation to discriminate between candidates on non-job-relevant grounds.

Sophie could try reorganising her work history to emphasise her current skills, knowledge and abilities by placing some key competency statements at the beginning of her resume before the work history.

She may also benefit from providing on her resume a clear explanation of why she stopped paid employment. Further, any evidence she has of maintaining her skills and knowledge while looking after her family would help her case.

On the second point, of organising an interstate move, recruiters' attitudes to interstate candidates vary depending on the seniority of the role. Some recruiters may incorrectly infer that an interstate candidate is somehow not serious about the role, or is desperate (and if so, question why they are finding it so hard to get a job in their own state).

Again, Sophie would benefit from developing a coherent, compelling narrative about why she is moving and why her application is a genuine one to be taken seriously.

For some jobs, recruiters may be concerned that they will be hit with relocation expenses or interview expenses, or may take the view that an interstate candidate poses a greater risk due to the possibility that they might not settle in their new state.

Again, for Sophie, the best strategy will be to anticipate these types of objections from the recruiters and to include statements on her resume and her cover letter that provide compelling answers to these doubts.

Sophie's best bet is not to get angry and vexed about this ingrained problem; rather, she needs to get past the annoyance to anticipate and neutralise concerns and questions in the recruiter's mind.

Jim Bright is professor of career education and development at ACU and a partner at Bright and Associates, a career management consultancy. Email marked clearly "FOR PUBLICATION" to brightside@jimbright.com.