BlogU

  • Career Coach: Women and Work Styles

    By Susan O'Doherty September 27, 2009 8:43 pm

    In a recent article in The Chronicle , Mary Ann Mason discusses ways the deck is stacked against ambitious women. The entire article is worth reading, but this passage, in particular, evoked strong memories and mixed feelings:

    As the only female dean at the University of California at Berkeley for several years, I sat in on countless meetings where men held the floor. One day a female colleague made a presentation to a meeting of the deans and received a cursory, bordering on rude, response. Afterward, she asked me how she could have been more effective.

    "Speak low and slowly, but smile frequently," I replied. This advice (which did help her next presentation) was based on my observation that women must adhere to a narrow band of behavior in order to be effective in mostly male settings. Women who speak too fast, or in too shrill a tone, are overlooked. Women who act in a highly assertive manner, which might be acceptable for men, are attended to, but not invited back. Women must be friendly, but they cannot be too friendly or a sexual connotation may be inferred.

    A few years ago, one of my clients, “Ellen,” a brilliant and forceful young woman, informed me that she had received a negative work evaluation. I was surprised to hear this, since her reports of her achievements reflected one success after another. “It’s not my work per se,” she clarified. “My actual work is fine. They told me I don’t have good ‘people skills,’ that I’m too abrasive and impatient. They suggested that I go to a coach, to learn how to communicate in a more tactful way. “We agreed that their stated objections were code for “not ladylike enough.”

    This client’s job entailed coordinating the work of a diverse and independent staff, some members of which were oppositional and even hostile. It was hard to imagine the Buddha performing her duties without occasional abrasiveness. It was even harder to imagine Donna Reed, or Betty from “Mad Men,” commanding any respect from this crew. Yet Ellen was expected to be both soft/feminine and effective. “Do any of the men get this kind of feedback?” I asked, but we both knew the answer.

    What was the more personal answer, though? We talked a great deal about what it would mean to change her “style” — how, on the one hand, it might be a valuable experience to learn other ways of relating; but on the other, she felt she was being told that her personality was unacceptable, and that it was necessary to paint a new, “feminine” face over her real one.

    There is no question that it’s important to behave in a professional manner at work. Often, this entails less than full personal expression. Ellen understood this, though. By her report (and she was reliable), she didn’t talk about her personal life, or her outside interests, on work time. She wasn’t crude or abusive. She was direct, clear in expressing her expectations, and forceful in demanding that they be met. Her primary goal was not to be liked but to get the job done well. A few people on her team grumbled about her managerial style, but nobody quit or requested a transfer. And her bosses didn’t dispute this. She got high marks on everything except “interpersonal relations,” but this was considered a serious enough issue to warrant a warning and a recommendation for remedial counseling.

    I was unsure how to advise her. Globally, I think workplaces need to get used to women who express the same spectrum of interpersonal styles as men do. Wiping out our personalities to replace them with the low-voiced, smiling, non-threatening Stepford persona that is sometimes demanded not only demeans us, but makes it harder for the next woman who doesn’t fit the mold.

    But we have to eat. And we may have ambitions that can only be served through giving up pieces of ourselves. It’s unfair, but much of life is unfair.

    Fortunately for Ellen, she found another position, where both her skills and her style are appreciated. (In fact, when I emailed her to ask permission to write this column, she responded with the following addendum: “I will briefly share that during the senior management meeting a few weeks ago, it was mentioned that they needed to get "another Ellen" to manage one of the other products, and then my manager said, "So if you were interested in duplicating yourself, or if you could recommend a duplicate," which was nice to hear. I am reasonably sure I am not doing anything different here - and have even been cranky on occasion - with the exception of the fact that I like coming here every day.”)

    But the bind continues for other women, and I don’t know what the “right” response is. Do you?

Go to comments (6) »
Advertisement
Open Job?

Comments on Career Coach: Women and Work Styles

  • Women can be agressive jerks
  • Posted by Jane on September 28, 2009 at 11:00am EDT

  • It is possible that sexism is at work in this case and others like it, but some women are aggressive jerks. If women who truly have problems working with others, particularly those who bully their underlings (there are two female profs like this in my department unfortunately), articles like this encourage them to ignore needed remediation.

  • And the men "aggressive jerks"? Is "coaching" recommended?
  • Posted by vfichera on September 28, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT

  • If there were some sort of "academic style" of leadership to which all must subscribe for the true "health" of an organization, then "coaching" might have a place as a training tool -- akin to learning the use of hand-washing and gloves in healthcare settings.

    However, such "coaching" is rarely, if ever, recommended for men in academia whose behaviors mirror those of many such women and whose aggression is part of their leadership style: valued and often praised by the same men -- and women -- who object to "aggressive" women.

    No, Professor Mason is calling it like it was then -- and, unfortunately, still is now -- for most women in academia.

  • An excuse to save on promotions -
  • Posted on September 28, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT

  • Finding, or we could say documenting, inadequate performance of women makes it easier for a supervisors to trim the personnel budget. There isn't enough money to go around, and the organization doesn't want to lose personnel who are dissatisfied. It's a pretty good bet the ladies will stick around no matter how unfair the assessment. You'll see that in terms of allocation of resources, increased work load...women are perceived to be more likely to put up with inequalities, partly because you can pull the 'team player' angle.

    That leaves the organization free to pursue or keep more "difficult" (male) employees.

  • Generation Gap
  • Posted by target on September 28, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT

  • It is my hope that the situation that 'Ellen' encountered in her first position is on it's way out, as I believe that much of it is a function of a generation gap in which both older female colleagues AND male colleagues view assertive, confident and capable younger female colleagues unfavorably.

    As the first comment suggests, there remain many vindictive, powerful women of an older generation who had to fight long and hard, at great sacrifice, to achieve the status and power they currently hold. Sadly, many of these successful women choose to make it even harder for their younger female colleagues to succeed, to levels that would make the most egregious and shocking hazing in a fraternity seem downright friendly and harmless. But sexism remains alive and well in the older male faculty, too, which means that a younger female colleague--particularly one who is reasonably attractive, assertive and more than adequately competent--is seen as a threat by both groups. I know: I was caught in the middle of a curricular battle between a dictatorial and vindictive female DOC and an all-male, out-of-date department. Depending on what changes the Dean was demanding, the Chair used me either as a shield to try to push through changes he did want, or as a target to blame for failure to implement changes that he did not support. The personal toll on me was horrific.

  • Dearly departed chair
  • Posted by Long Distance Mom on September 28, 2009 at 6:30pm EDT

  • I think your remarks are right on target, Susan. After serving as a department chair at two universities, I learned that the "Speak low and slowly, but smile frequently" advice is often a double bind. Faculty, both male and female, seem surprised by critical evaluations from female administrators. Freudian 'mother' issues aside...this resistance seems to be due, in part, to the apparent contradictions of a friendly, 'feminine' administrator with a critical evaluator. I found it necessary to have 'friends' in upper administration who would back my judgment up to maintain respect and authority with certain faculty.

  • Thank you
  • Posted by Char (PSI Tutor:Mentor) , Facilitator on September 30, 2009 at 5:30am EDT

  • As a woman I really appreciate your writing a conversation about a topic that continues to be ignored. Broaching the idea that many men continue to expect woman to conduct themselves in a way that makes them feel "safe" is oppression.

    My two cents~ No! to painting on the "feminine face" for the workplace and Yes to saying "No to oppression".

    It would help, of course, if woman saw themselves as a sisterhood that could demonstrate to the "boys club/brotherhood" an alternative way of daily interaction, and we as a species could get more done rather than spinning in circles creating our own daily struggle.

Print
© Copyright 2010 Inside Higher Ed