Another complicating factor is the difference between short-term negotiation and long-term negotiation. One of the zillion things I dislike about college-student studies is that they seem to be so artificial. When in life are you really negotiating something important with someone you'll never have to see or interact with again?
Look, if I'm trying to rent a car and I want to get the best price, I can be as hard-nosed as I want, because when am I ever going to see that rental clerk again? But if I am trying to argue a point with a colleague I'm going to see in another meeting this afternoon, and on a different team project next week, and in a new job in my field three years from now, it behooves me not to burn my bridges.
Big, big difference.
Precisely -- which is essentially the difference for me between opposing counsel and the guys I work for. Anything I need from opposing counsel is in a limited context; while the relationship can go on for years, it comes to an end, and it's expected to be somewhat oppositional. Guys I work for, the relationship is openended and is supposed to be cooperative.
I think there's also a bigger range in which a guy can be aggressive without being considered an asshole compared to the range where a woman can be aggressive without being a bitch. No one wants to be perceived as an asshole or a bitch, but the result of this is that women tend to back off a little sooner or get labelled a man-eater.
Plus 'deferentially engaged' for a woman usually translates as 'flirty.' Avoiding that but still coming across as assertive in a relationship you hope to keep is challenging.
On preview, what Witt said. I gave a border patrol officer a hard (but polite) time when shivbunny moved from Canada, but generally have problems asking senior professors if they want to read my work.
Deferentially engaged is an interesting concept. I find myself doing this a lot around my superiors. When I was a grad student, I used to joke that socially you should treat math professors as though they're really, really popular, and they'll just eat it up.
No one wants to be perceived as [...] a bitch
Paging BitchPhD, paging BitchPhD.
Plus 'deferentially engaged' for a woman usually translates as 'flirty.' Avoiding that but still coming across as assertive in a relationship you hope to keep is challenging.
Oooh, this is a really good point. I was just having a conversation with someone about workplace banter and why guy-style busting on each other's favorite sports teams, etc. can be one of the few ways for a woman to be "acceptably" jokey/bantering with a man in the office.
5: Her pseudonym is really just a cry for help, apo.
Great post, by the way. Your support in the M/tch M/lls community is still solid.
5: I'd be willing to bet B is bitchier in her Bitch persona than she is in, say, literature department meetings.
5: Seriously, I think Bitch has a whole lot to say about the disinhibiting effects of the internet in this regard -- that it's a lot easier to be forceful with people you don't initially have an expectation of a continued reciprocal relationship with. I know I feel that way -- even socially, I'm a lot more forthcoming and outgoing online than I am in person, where I'm fairly silent and retiring until I get comfortable, and only then do I start giving people what for.
I was just having a conversation with someone about workplace banter and why guy-style busting on each other's favorite sports teams, etc. can be one of the few ways for a woman to be "acceptably" jokey/bantering with a man in the office.
See, I don't agree with this. I think most humor diffuses office relationship and clarifies that they are friendly. It's definitely not aggressive though.
I wrote a post at one point about how I felt my humor conflicted with being a feminist, and I meant precisely this humor-deferentially-engaged shtick. It's not bad exactly, but it's very muddy to me.
And I just reread the post, and wanted to make it clear that I'm not attributing my lack of success at work only to the fault of the people I work for:
mostly I get the strong impression from people I've worked for that when I advocate strongly for a position I believe in, that I'm behaving unacceptably.
While I haven't gotten this impression from nowhere -- I think I'm largely right that people do feel this way -- I think I'd probably be more successful if I erred on the side of over rather than under aggression, and pissed people off more while looking more eager. The pattern I fall into interacts with the different gender expectations for men then for women, but I'm not claiming to be flawless and harddoneby.
Now that I've read the original Washington Post article, I have to say that what I actually like most about this study is that it starts from the hypothesis that people are behaving rationally, and then applies that to the results as well:
"This isn't about fixing the women," Bowles said. "It isn't about telling women, 'You need self-confidence or training.' They are responding to incentives within the social environment."
See, I don't agree with this. I think most humor diffuses office relationship and clarifies that they are friendly. It's definitely not aggressive though.
Heebie, I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I was unclear. I agree, humor is often not aggressive. In 6, I was agreeing with Cala that it can be hard for a woman to be deferentially engaged without falling into the trap of being flirtatious (or at least being worried that people will think you are being flirtatious).
It was more a comment on the narrowness of the range of behavior (between over-aggressive and too-flirtatious). Make sense?
Mmm. I had a post here way back when about advising a junior lawyer I know to be 'flirtier' -- that is, to try and disinhibit herself about being deferentially friendly with senior men, even though it may feel inappropriately flirtatious. I know that's an area where my inhibitions have served me badly.
I was talking with my dad about this once and he being an old sexist guy, said, "It's an asset, use it." We're not talking about sleeping one's way to the top, mind, just about how people pay more attention to me when I'm dressed up and wearing make-up. Being aggressive and cute (or at least painted) seems to be acceptable in a way that being aggressive and dowdy isn't.
I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Heh. Just to be totally obsessively detailed about it, Witt, what I wrote was unclear. I was trying to argue that there's a broad range of humor, not a narrow range of humor, and that was the extent of my response to your comment.
The confusing part, "It's definitely not aggressive though" was an aside. I was trying to relate it back to the original post. I should have put it in parentheses.
I'd also argue that 'aggressive and cute' isn't just visually different from 'aggressive and dowdy' -- that it involves being literally less aggressive and more deferential. As a woman in the workplace, being 'as aggressive as you can be while remaining cute' is probably your best option for good results, because it lets you be somewhat aggressive without pissing people off too much, but it's not the same as 'just be straighforwardly aggressive, but make sure your nails look good and show a little cleavage'.
Do we have a Maureen Dowd-style obligation to feminism to turn-up the ballbuster behavior at the work-place?
I'm not sure. I'm wondering if the aggressive-and-cute combination isn't marginally acceptable as it's sort of the corollary of the chubby-guy-being-the-clown or not-quite-chet-making-sports-jokes in terms of it being just a way to connect with colleagues and bosses.
A demure, refined sense of humor like Heebie's could hardly offend anyone.
'Obligation' is an overstatement, but I think we probably do have a collective action problem. I think women individually get punished for percieved overaggressiveness, and then for the actual underaggressiveness they develop in response to the prior category of punishment, and the best individual strategy for most individual women is to find the line where they're being as forceful as possible without triggering punishment from the men they have to maintain relationships with. As a group, we'd probably be better off if we all bulled ahead and took the gendered punishment we're going to get handed for being forceful the way that's acceptable for men but not for women -- at some point people would have to get used to it, don't you think?
Thesis A: more conventionally attractive women have a greater capacity to push the "aggressive" theshold without being labeled "bitchy" by men (especially when the agressiveness is tailored towards the "agressive and cute"). Less convenetionally attractive women more often find themselves labeled "bitchy" for barely standing up for themselves.
Thesis B: in very many careers, being considered "bitchy" is less of a professional hinderance than is commonly thought. It sucks, and sucks that women are labeled, and it's no fun to be personally disliked be co-workers, but that dislike is often an purely interpersonal (and not-so-subtlely sexual) dislike; perceived professional competence is often unaffected. This is true even in many careers requiring high levels of collaboration.
This post takes for granted that aggression is something women are prevented and inhibited from doing, that they would like to be able to do. That doing so if only you could is highly desirable.
So that a notably non-aggressive man like I am, whose professional success has no doubt often suffered because of it, is sometimes regarded with bafflement, irritation and contempt by female co-workers. One actually said to me something like "If I were as big, sonorous, knowledgeable and male as you, I'd kick ass." Thanks a lot.
When I was growing up, my mom was called in to talk with my teachers about my problem of not raising my hand before talking. I can't overstate how often she got called in. As a junior and senior in high school, I seriously got written up for talking without raising my hand. (I just, for the life of me, could not remember to raise my hand half the time.)
But I never, ever got in trouble at home; Mom just quoted some study about how in the classroom, girls get in trouble for talking without raising their hand but are permitted side conversations, whereas boys get in trouble for having side conversations but are permitted to talk without raising their hand, and it consequentially stifles girls' involvement.
I don't really have a point except that I deeply appreciate Mom having my back all those years.
I would argue that 'perceived professional competence' and 'personality that will best secure your professional advantage' are divergent here for women. Again, using myself as an example, no one at the firm where I work thinks I'm incompetent -- in meetings discussing strategy on the cases I'm working on, I'm listened to respectfully. But I don't successfully form repeat relationships with senior lawyers, who seek me out to work with again. My personality traits (going back and forth between forcefulness and passivity, without successfully hitting deferential engagement) don't make me look incompetent, and don't, I think, make me look like a bitch, given that even when being forceful, I'm reasonably polite. But they don't encourage the sort of relationship formation you need to be trusted with responsible work.
I just, for the life of me, could not remember to raise my hand half the time.
Bitch.
This post takes for granted that aggression is something women are prevented and inhibited from doing, that they would like to be able to do. That doing so if only you could is highly desirable.
I'd say, aggression is a nice tool to have available as an option. Not saying that all women would use it if they could, but there are specific situations that call for aggression, and it's helpful to have a full arsenal of available behaviors.
I'd guess an inhibited man suffers many of the same consequences as women in those situations like negotiating a salary, where a little aggression would translate into financial gains.
Conventionally attractive women don't get a pass for being more aggressive. Often, I've seen the opposite.
In general, I sincerely doubt the thing making aggressiveness is as simple as "attractiveness." It's a more complex stereotyping people do when they size you up by looking at you. For example, people really really expect me to be sweet and innocent and demure and unaggressive and deferential and wrong more often and not to be listened to with any kind of authority-granting because i'm short and blonde. Often they expect this before a word has come out of my mouth. Honestly, I expect this punishment-for-aggressiveness coming from men has a lot to do with women being smaller physically, i.e. shorter and less heavy, not with attractiveness.
Being attractive, if anything, is just another reason for getting punished in the workplace.
25: Well, the assumption is that professional success is desirable, and is contingent on a certain amount of aggression. If you're consciously making the tradeoff "I could be more successful here if I were more aggressive, but I don't want to be," more power to you.
The point of the post is that the incentives for men and for women to make that tradeoff are systematically different.
27: LB, I think you're supporting (or at least not countering) my point. My point is that being aggressive to the point of perceived "bitchy"-ness is not necessarily a career-killer. (Even though it's undoubtedly no fun to be thought of that way.)
Heebie was training herself for blogging at an early age. Good for Heebiemom!
Being attractive, if anything, is just another reason for getting punished in the workplace.
Hmmm, I don't think I agree with this. Being attractive keeps women on their co-workers radar, and being unattractive correllates with being overlooked.
Being on the radar probably means increased punishment sometimes, but I think on the whole it results in more promotions and more positive benefits and that type of thing.
mostly I get the strong impression from people I've worked for that when I advocate strongly for a position I believe in, that I'm behaving unacceptably.
you'd be surprised how acceptable unacceptable behaviour actually is.
Good for Heebiemom!
I'll pass that on.
Being attractive, if anything, is just another reason for getting punished in the workplace.
I think there's good evidence to the contrary, at least in the majority of cases.
I'm doing the Brock was pwned by Heebie dance.
35 is what I was trying to say with Thesis B.
32: Well, the research cited in the post suggests that aggressiveness from women results in concrete penalties -- women who negotiate salary are less likely to be hired than women who don't or than men who do (yeah, again, it's a study of a couple of dozen undergrads, but it does fit with my experience). I'm not claiming personally to strike the balance between bitchiness and non-bitchiness with the greatest possible skill, but I don't think my perception that being perceived as overly aggressive is professionally dangerous is all in my head.
Times when I've been professionally forceful haven't resulted in better relationship formation at work than times I've been withdrawn; I'm guessing there's a happy medium I can't manage to hit that would be better still. Nonetheless, I don't think I get the same professional rewards from being forceful that a man in my position would.
Honestly, I expect this punishment-for-aggressiveness coming from men has a lot to do with women being smaller physically, i.e. shorter and less heavy, not with attractiveness.
You know, I was wondering about this. Height is correlated positively with things like perceived leadership aptitude, and women just aren't going to be on average as tall as men.
Being attractive, if anything, is just another reason for getting punished in the workplace.
In my experience, this isn't true. Both attractive men and attractive women have an easier time of it than their less attractive co-workers.
And further to 32 and 35, look back at my 23. I think women would probably be better off as a class if we ignored the penalties we get for being forceful, but just because I think we'd be better off ignoring those incentives, doesn't mean they aren't real.
If you're consciously making the tradeoff
And if you're not? If heartache, disappointment, bafflement are not what you've chosen?
I'd bet more than a few women would, will and do feel as I do, that if that's what it takes, they don't have it in them.
43: But I think 32 and 35 are saying that women individually would be better off, which is a question at least partially independent from whether women as a class would be better off.
42: I think there's a narrow line between 'attractive' and 'sexy' for women -- if you're pleasant to look at, you're better off, but if that turns into being particularly sexually attractive, that's a problem of its own. Moira talked about life being easier in this regard as a tomboyish lesbian, and I'd bet she's right: that being nice to look at, but being perceived as sexually off-limits (being a 'nice married woman' works well too), is probably your best position to be in.
45: Right. I'm disagreeing with them.
44: Sure, and life is hard for the innately unaggressive in a culture that values aggressiveness. There are going to be some women and some men who just aren't particularly forceful. All I'm talking about is that for that portion of women who could manage being sufficiently forceful to succeed, they reasonably perceive that it's likely not to work for them.
Is 'aggressiveness' overvalued generally? Probably -- I think a lot of workplaces put too much weight on this sort of personality factor and not enough on demonstrated competence.
Let me put it this way, LB: among the highly successful professional women I know, more are often regarded as "bitchy" (or, more politely, agressive) than not. I'm sure there're a few sweet mousy women at the top, but I don't know them.
Can I just say that I am at this very moment filling out a survey for an organizational behavior class, and if this is the kind of garbage that they are teaching in OB classes, we're still going to be having these conversations in 20 years?
(It's a lot of trite stuff about personality and and "fit" with the organization -- the kind of stuff that gets half-digested and then spit back out as permission to indulge all of your favorite prejudices when hiring. Ugh, ugh, ugh.)
49 - That doesn't mean it hasn't cost them professionally. If you must have a trait to get to the top, and women are penalized for having that trait, the highly successful women will still exhibit that trait. But in fewer numbers than men with that trait.
46: I agree. It's a narrow line between being the cute woman who can get things done because she's balanced being aggressive with being attractive enough that the guys aren't threatened by aggression and being the one 'who only got where she is because of her boobs.' Being married would help because of the presumption that you're off-limits no matter how much eyeliner you wear.
49: Two things--first, you're looking at the women who have succeeded, not the ones who got derailed for overaggressiveness. In most fields, certainly in litigation, there are fewer highly successful women than men, and I'm arguing that it's because they're walking a tightrope between two extremes, being too intimidating to talk to, and just 'not having what it takes'. Second, I would bet, based on the highly successful professional women I know, that they're likely to be pretty darn sweet when necessary, even if not mousy. (Not everyone, these are people, there are no universals, and so forth.)
Another way of putting this: do you think the linked study, and the perceptions of most of the women you're talking to, that overforcefulness is a real professional risk, are all factually mistaken in the same way? If so, I think you need better evidence than that 'some women succeed despite being perceived as overaggressive.'
As a group, we'd probably be better off if we all bulled ahead and took the gendered punishment we're going to get handed for being forceful the way that's acceptable for men but not for women[...]
Which is worthless without its corollary -- refusing to hand out or go along with the gendered punishment. Note that the study said that both men AND women penalize women for getting uppity, so we need to be aware of how our own reactions to other women in our workplace contribute to an environment where we ourselves are frowned on for being aggressive.
Even if we're not in a position of power, if a colleague makes that kind of judgment out loud, it's important to make it clear that we disagree with it. (As someone who people tend to overlook, I've found this kind of polite but pointed disagreement extremely effective because of the mild shock factor. If the judger is at all self-aware, s/he really does hear it.)
Note that the study said that both men AND women penalize women for getting uppity, so we need to be aware of how our own reactions to other women in our workplace contribute to an environment where we ourselves are frowned on for being aggressive.
Well, it said that women penalize both men and women equally for being uppity -- I guess the trick is for women to either stop penalizing women or start being more aggressive about penalizing men.
Even if we're not in a position of power, if a colleague makes that kind of judgment out loud, it's important to make it clear that we disagree with it.
Right. Either to reframe it as a positive trait (after a job candidate leaves the room "Wow, she would be terrific at dealing with the pushy clients") or hark back to a respected (male) colleague ("She reminded me of Mark").
I disagree with Thesis B in that, if someone in power really dislikes you, they may conflate their dislike of you with their opinion of your competence because they want to have a reason to make you go away. (It can happen to both men and women, though, so not a gender thing.)
I've no doubt that many women are professionally punished for appearing too aggressive. Did I come off as if I were implying otherwise? My claim was only that the level of professional punishment is often overestimated. And as a corrolary that what women perceive as the "right balance" is probably often weighted too heavily against aggressiveness.
57 was what I was getting at -- and also doing the reframing for male behavior as well, when appropriate. (Such as when, during a conversation with a bunch of former work colleagues, one commented on how the guy who had left his job and was on dad duty full-time was "slacking off," and I pointed out that he wasn't because childcare for two preschoolers is a hell of a lot of work.)
I guess the trick is for women to either stop penalizing women or start being more aggressive about penalizing men.
Perhaps, but I suspect it would be more effective for men to stop penalizing men and women differently.
(I realize you're just talking about what women can do, but I think the role of men here is crucial to addressing the problem.)
My claim was only that the level of professional punishment is often overestimated. And as a corrolary that what women perceive as the "right balance" is probably often weighted too heavily against aggressiveness.
Certainly true in some individual cases, given that if there are two directions to err in, people will probably err in both (I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not one of them, mostly just because I'm a lot more functional at full aggressiveness than when I'm more shut down), but I can't imagine what your basis is for assuming that women on average systematically make the wrong judgment about what will most likely secure their professional advantage.
My claim was only that the level of professional punishment is often overestimated.
In the short term, possibly. In the long term, it makes it harder to form professional relationships because people see you as difficult.
61: Oh, that'd be lovely if it happened.
I should have noted that my experience comes entirely from an industry which is notorious for a) overvaluing aggression and b) very very few women in it.
58: and part of what I was saying is that I think it's commonly overestimated exactly how much this man in power is going to "dislike" you, at least in anything other than a sexual sense. Not that he often probably stops to think about it that clearly. But I think it's often the case that his manifest "dislike" is just him wanting less to sleep with you, not wanting less to work with you (except insofar as he likes to work with people that he imagines himself wanting to sleep with, which is probably a non-trivial amount for the women with whom he works).
Could I have made that any less clear?
by the way, we're all talking as if everyone would like to solve this problem but it's not true - there are lots and lots of men out there who treat women more unpleasantly whatever their behaviour because they fundamentally don't like women and don't want them in their workplace.
66: I'm talking about on a personal level, not on a sexual level. I can guarantee you that the people in power I've experienced this with were not re-evaluating my sexual desirability alongside my competence.
Not that he often probably stops to think about it that clearly. But I think it's often the case that his manifest "dislike" is just him wanting less to sleep with you, not wanting less to work with you
My experience differs. I can think of a lot of senior men who I've worked with who have said very respectful things about my work product, and treated my professional contributions as highly valuable (good reviews, respectful treatment of my participation in meetings, so forth.) They tend not to seek me out for repeated assignment to their cases -- I move from working for one partner to the next, without a lot of repeat work for the same people, and you can't get anywhere in a law firm that way.
Now, I am spending my workday commenting on a blog (I met you guys after hitting a peak of professional frustration), so it's certainly possible that I personally deserve my lack of success. But from my perspective, the gendered issue we're talking about seems to be part of it.
62: because women, like men, are not perfectly rational? I don't think women are doing anything uniquely irrational here--I think most men would do the exact same thing were the tables turned (and currently do very similar things in many comparable situations). I'm honestly not trying to disparage women.
(except insofar as he likes to work with people that he imagines himself wanting to sleep with).
Bingo.
Also, what Magpie said. It's not (just) about short-term consequences like your boss refusing to give you time off. Especially for people in career-path jobs, it's about the longer-term working relationships.
71: That's an argument for women making irrational choices generally -- it's not yet an argument for a claim that women on average make a particular irrational choice (that is, that they over, rather than under, estimate how much harm aggression will do them in the workplace). The linked study (which I'm not saying has more value than as an anecdote) shows the women participating responding, on average, rationally to genuinely existing incentives.
69: LB, again you're turning my point exactly around backwards. Without knowing you and based on only what you've said about yourself, yadda yadda, it doesn't surprise me at all that these very impressed, respectful partners don't seek you out for repeated assignments. What would surprise me more would be if you were "as aggressive as most men" about the issue--to the point where you probably perceived as "bitchy", unfairly of course--and those partners still didn't offer repeat work. (And you're claim is even stronger--that it's rational to fear they'd give you even less repeat work.)
Actually, it appears the only good negotiating position for women is to be attractive, married, and childless.
75: I think you're misunderstanding me; that is, I understand you to be saying "Of course you're not getting repeat work, you've described yourself as passive and disengaged."
When I put myself down as being passive, that's on some cases -- probably more than not these days, but not all of them, just the cases where I get the strong impression that my input isn't called for. On the cases where I let myself be more forceful, and do better work, I get praise and respect for the quality of my work. And I still don't get any more repeat assignments than I do from the cases where I'm phoning it in. Actively saving a partner from fucking shit up doesn't work to build relationships any better from quietly doing what you're told, if you don't sugarcoat it with enough deference.
77 cont.: at least, in my personal experience.
71: LB, from the article:
Yes, there is an economic rationale to negotiate, but you have to weigh that against social risks of negotiating. What we show is those risks are higher for women than for men.
"Playing nice" for women involves trading professional success for social success (in the workplace). It involves no such tradeoff for men, as aggressive men don't face the same social punishment. This absolutely sucks for women, and I'm not trying to say it's fair or just.
demonstrated competence
Often a threat. Aggressiveness and timidity both have the advantage of being predictable and subject to manipulation. Competence is not necessary all that often.
79: You're misreading the article. The 'social' penalty in the study was not getting a job offer, not getting the job offer but being socially snubbed.
That sentence structure didn't work. In case it was incomprehensible, what I meant to say is that the 'social' penalty was a professional and economic penalty for violating a social norm. If the penalties for violating social norms were just that people didn't want to be your friend, that'd be much less of a problem.
I'm offering solid life coaching over here, but, well, this is where I just throw up my hands and retreat to "whatever, I'm not a woman and so have no direct experience of this and obviously don't have any idea what I'm talking about." I guess I don't know what to say except that sure sucks for y'all. You should really get yourselves some penises.
I'm not misreading anything, you shrew. I was deliberately pulling that quote out of context.
Huh. This is interesting--obviously, I haven't had any long-term working relationships of any kind, but I have thought about this "agressiveness" thing quite a bit. I have found that what's harder for me is negotiating good working relationships with my peers, rather than my superiors. My (universally male) superiors have, for the most part, seemed to respond well to my forceful advocating for my position (on whatever matter large or small), but I find it makes it quite hard to work with men who are functionally my equal. Maybe it's because I feel less of a need to have any kind of deference at all in a peer-situation, so I just state my opinions outright. This often leads to some acrimony, which is usually ok, but is unfortunately coupled with the perception of me as a huge bitch.
Then they don't know what to make of me because I am genuinely friendly and easy-going, so it's like "is this chick a huge bitch or not?"
84: Whoops. That presumption of argument in good faith will get you every time.
85: This is going to sound really, really depressing, and even if I'm right, you'd probably be better off disbelieving me -- I think this is a situation where an accurate assessment of the dynamics is probably not an advantage. But I think the ease of dealing with superiors you're feeling is related to the fact that your relationships have been short term, and characterized by a great deal of professional distance -- partner to summer associate or law clerk. This is one of those things that gets to be more of a problem the closer you get.
Do you think this effect works across firms? Is opposing counsel or the whomever is on the other side of the table in a banking deal more likely to retaliate or less likely to settle or whatever if they are facing an aggressive woman?
I'd also like to add that engineers are generally a) sexist and b) assholes, but it's amazing what one can get away with with a little competence to back it up.
90: I dunno, only having been a litigator. As I said, I find dealing with opposing counsel a pleasure, but that's a relationship that's supposed to be oppositional (albeit working best when it's at least formally courteous). I don't have a sense that male lawyers have an easier time getting concessions than I do; actually, as a reasonably forceful woman I think the gender dynamics work in my favor. I have the impression I have more social space to disregard bluster and move past it without getting derailed than a man might.
In formally non-hostile negotiations do women get steamrollered more? I dunno.
In my job, peer relationships leave a lot of room for concessions -- I can say, I can't do this your way because of technical limitation X, but here's a better way to do this, or this will take Y amount of time because I have 6 other tasks ahead of you. So when I deliver what I say I will, done as well or better than expected, as soon as or earlier than the time window I gave, people are really, really happy, because sadly, lots of people in my profession aren't very good at this, or worse, don't even see the need for it.
It's in situations where I'm forcefully advocating for something -- more or better work, a change in policy -- that people tend to be less comfortable, and those situations tend to be more with supervisors or my immediate work group. (In my last job, this didn't cause friction with my work group because, more often than not, it was in a meeting situation and they were all keeping quiet, and, come on, SOMEONE'S got to have an opinion, right?) But the commonality between this and 85, of course, is the bit about having an opinion and expressing it with conviction.
To Jake's point, and dsquared above, I think it's worth noting that it is somewhat contextual by field. A woman can get away with "pushier" behavior in, say, IT, than in healthcare. But there is still a line of what is too pushy -- it's just moved out a little, both for men and for women.
maybe women, having less experience socializing aggressivly, don't do 'aggressive' quite as well?
Possibly. Personally, I think I handle aggression with flair and verve. Brio, even.
96: does `handle' mean facing it, or projecting it?
maybe women, having less experience socializing aggressivly, don't do 'aggressive' quite as well?
Men are so wonderfully nuanced when they're aggressive, but we just slab it on with a big ol' pain-roller?
painT-roller. A big old painT-roller. Is our device for applying aggression.
The lines are still always drawn in two different places, though. A woman in IT can never get away with being as much of an asshole as a highly technically-skilled guy.
In formally non-hostile negotiations do women get steamrollered more?
Not if they have a pain-roller handy.
97: Both. Well, I suppose the reacting to aggression bit is more stone-faced stolidity than flair -- I save the flair for when I'm on the attack. But it's damn high quality stone-faced stolidity.
Not if they have a pain-roller handy.
Such deftly applied aggression is the envy of ladies everywhere. Well played, M/llsy.
I apply my pain with a tiny little nail-polish brush, 'cause I'm dainty like that. But it smells more.
Men use watercolor brushes to apply aggression.
103: I'm not sure I like your tone, young lady.
I'm not sure I like your tone, young lady.
I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU, DAD. I learned it from watching you.
112: You sure it wasn't OPINIONATED GRANDMA you were watching?
I think it was /p/n//n/t/d gr/ndm/, now that you mention it.
114: We always just used to call her "Slashy".
A woman in IT can never get away with being as much of an asshole as a highly technically-skilled guy.
I used to work with a group where the two best programmers / system builders were women. One would give the systems people two hours to deal with any problem that she had and then go sit on the sysadmin's desk until he (an IBM-loving tool) fixed it. The other, a petite blonde given to lame shoes combined with otherwise basic jeans-and-blouses dress, would regularly tell folks that they couldn't come to her meetings because the subject would be complicated. Both of them were nice people. So I do not think that this is true everywhere.
lw, the women you describe are not assholes (though the meeting thing is pretty obnoxious).
At least, not if those are the most unpleasant things to be said about them. Those behaviors get you to 'annoyingly quirky', not to 'asshole'.
I really want a pair of gold lamé shoes. This is probably the last season I'll find them for sale, so I'd better move quick!
Those behaviors get you to 'annoyingly quirky', not to 'asshole'.
Not annoyingly quirky, more like quirkily annoying.
Assholery that you can get away with in IT: a guy who waltzes into an interview, slags off on the company he's interviewing with, blames everything that's gone wrong in his career on other people, interrupts women (and only women) who are trying to ask him interview questions, lectures his interviewers on various technical topics and generally acts like the sun shines out of his ass. And this is in an INTERVIEW -- imagine what his personality is like after he's actually been hired.
He did not get hired for this particular position, but he is well-regarded in his subfield and was recommended by someone at this company who had worked with him before.
Wow. What's 'asshole' and 'tolerated'? Inappropriately marrying the support staff is a speciality among lawyers, I know, and can betray character flaws, but can be professionally ignored, right? Maybe the problem is 'tolerated;' sufficiently powerful people can promote cronies or professionally damage others on a whim, but
not eliminating such a someone is not IMO the same as tolerating them, which entails not reminding them that they told that joke last month.
Asshole: see above. And not tolerated, but rewarded, because the line of unacceptable behavior is drawn incredibly generously when someone's perceived to have the technical chops to be worth hiring. Rewarded meaning that they continue to have a good professional reputation, that people who have worked with them in the past will continue to refer them for jobs and that the less savory aspects of their personalities don't get near the word of mouth that their technical skills do. (Did I mention that the fine piece of work above also had another reputation, which was completely disasocciated with his professional one, as a likely date rapist of women in his social circles?)
105 was disturbingly safe for work. Having children changes a man.
OK, that's bad, particularly the out-of-work behavior; I don't have anything comparable firsthand, only competent Machiavellian behavior by people of both sexes. I guess that, like all men, I am slow to see sexism where apathy and greed or social deafness are sufficient explanation. I can see where repeated exposure to male jerks but not female would raise hackles. The most egregious discrimination I see is against non-native speakers by sales or ex-sales types.
also had another reputation...as a likely date rapist of women in his social circles
"Likely" implies charges never brought but an allegation widely believed, "women" implies more than one incident. Am I right?
I may be an outlier here, but I've found at my own firm that women have a harder time than men with my "aggressive" style. (Speaking at the level of superiors, that is.) I'm really a rather passive type generally, but when I disagree with an idea, I have no problem saying so. And none of the male partners I work with has ever complained -- one has even suggested that my "intriguing" lack of respect for authority is among my finer qualities. One of the few female partners I have worked for, in contrast, tends to take my expression of any disagreement as an invitation to put me in my place and remind me how far down on the totem pole I actually am.
IDP, yes to both, though the source of that information wouldn't necessarily have heard if charges had been brought. What was unquestionable was that the guy violated women's boundaries in public in really creepy and aggressive ways.
LW, the guy above is an edge case, but I'm betting that anyone who's worked in tech for any length of time has had to deal with at least one milder version of that same guy. I'm also guessing that there's a significant minority of men in tech who are more aware of and sensitive to sexism in part because they don't ever want to be mistaken for that guy.
Di, are you working in a male-dominated industry/office? I ask because it seems like women are more threatened when there are fewer around because only one woman is "allowed" to be successful.
LW, note that the sexism of the guy in 123 is but one note in a rich bouquet of odious personality traits. You might not notice his sexism, but I'm sure his dickishness would come across loud and clear to you.
Di's another lawyer. I figure her experience goes down to 'nothing's universal'.
That looked obnoxious after I posted it. "Nothing's universal" should also include "and maybe I'm just wrong".
Magpie: for what it's worth, there seem to be a lot more of these guys around than the number who really have the technical chops. They mostly get away with it because of mangerial ignorance of the technical fields they rely on, and of peoples actual replaceability. I have seen one of these guys torn to pieces but a good CTO though, and fired in a way that definitely affected his hireability. So it can backfire.
All in all this isn't restricted to IT types though. There are asshole lawyers, asshole finance/accounting types, asshole CEO's for the matter who all fit the mold of `you need me, and I'm going to rub your face in it'.
135 isn't an exhaustive list of the type, of course.
119: The meeting thing isn't necessarily obnoxious (although calling it `complicated' rather than `technical' may be) if you are stuck in a corporate culture that suffers badly from meeting inflation...
Though if said culture also determines your status by how many meetings, we're back to obnoxious.
Inappropriately marrying the support staff is a speciality among lawyers
"inappropriately marrying"? ooh la di da.
138: true. it can be a minefield.
meetings you're invited to, that is..
141: Yeah, I understood. I've also run into the `inside every meeting is a smaller, useful meeting struggling to get out' effect.
I think the mispelling in username in 139 should retroactively be made permanent.
It's been used before, for comments that are for some reason too inflammatory or embarrassing to be associated with the regular persona.
Magpie, I think the male-dominated aspect does play into the way other, senior women respond -- they had to work their way up to being occasionally bitchy over the course of 20+ years and think I ought to learn my place, too.
LB, you're right on the "nothing's universal" -- especially in the law, where really we're all a bunch of freaks in our own endearing ways.
As for the law and inappropriate marrying of support staff. At my firm, I've seen more than I care to of lawyers having inappropriate relationships with the support staff, but marriage was rarely involved. (Or rather, the marriages that were involved were the part that made the relationships with support staff all the more inappropriate. I hate lawyers sometimes.)
144 - The idea that there could actually be such a category staggers my imagination.
29
"I'd guess an inhibited man suffers many of the same consequences as women in those situations like negotiating a salary, where a little aggression would translate into financial gains."
I don't think this is entirely true. To the extent that men in general are perceived as less willing to put up with mistreatment (like below market pay) even wimpy guys will benefit. Similarly bad women drivers benefit when buying auto insurance.
146: It's for when he's being all soft and cuddly.
146: I know -- fascinating to consider the thought process. "I couldn't possibly post that under my real name!"
42
"You know, I was wondering about this. Height is correlated positively with things like perceived leadership aptitude, and women just aren't going to be on average as tall as men."
I have seen claims that sex differences in pay disappear when controlled for height.
Heh. I bet density of beard growth would work just as well.
62
"... but I can't imagine what your basis is for assuming that women on average systematically make the wrong judgment about what will most likely secure their professional advantage."
If women are more cautious then men, women will be less likely to take professional risks. This could be a systematic problem.
Sure, systematic problems are possible. That's not an argument that a particular systematic problem does exist.
These guys think that the height premium is because tall people are smarter:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12466
That looked obnoxious after I posted it. "Nothing's universal" should also include "and maybe I'm just wrong".
LB, you throw away your advantage right at the point of triumph. You had Di Kotimy on the ground and were poised to grind your spike heel into her face, but suddenly you went all Mother Theresa.
I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that in the interest of feminism, Di Kotimy would have been proud to be part of you omelette.
153
Here is a report about a study. It doesn't say sex differences disappear but does say height is more important. See this also.
69
"Now, I am spending my workday commenting on a blog (I met you guys after hitting a peak of professional frustration), so it's certainly possible that I personally deserve my lack of success. But from my perspective, the gendered issue we're talking about seems to be part of it."
Not that it's any of my business, but why did you go into big law in the first place? The mercenary soldier morality required to succeed doesn't seem like a good fit.
161: Yes, I'm familiar with research showing that height boosts pay. That's a good deal different from what you said in 152.
My wife is very good at succeeding professionally in boys' clubs. She's very competitive and can be extremely aggressive about it, but she also makes a lot of nice gestures on a personal level (genuinely interested in people, gives small gifts as thank-yous, does personal favors, etc.). And she's attractive, likes to banter, and doesn't have much in the way of limits when banter turns competitive. It's not really a repeatable formula, though, it's just who she is.
154
Probably not, height is a big advantage even when each sex is considered separately. Or are you arguing that bearded women do better than most women.
#164: you can add the words "like the Mineshaft", "at the Mineshaft" etc roughly once every three words in that post and it is hilarious.
162: No, it's a fair question. With top quarter but not top tenth of the class grades from a good school, BigLaw jobs are trivially easy to get -- interesting public interest, less so, and public interest that would pay the mortgage and my loans not at all (jobs that pay half of what BigLaw pays are a brute to find. You've got BigLaw, or a third of what Biglaw pays). Fresh out of law school, it looked like my best option, and switching tracks is hard.
I really do like the lawyering, I just suck at the intra-firm dynamics, and you're right, can't stand the clients.
165: Actually, one of the best female lawyers I know does have a bit of a facial hair problem. But she's not being compensated commensurately with her skills, so I suppose she's not even anecdotal support.
On my periodic scan of the USAJobs website over the weekend I saw a GS-14 (IIRC) lawyer position with the SEC in NYC that looked like a good match for a 5-10 year litigator type.
I interviewed with them in February or so and didn't get it. Given that my qualifications haven't changed since then, probably not a strong possibility.
If you grow some more facial hair you could be a strong candidate.
What? You've written tons of great posts since February. Surely that has to bolster your qualifications somewhat.
Well that sucks. Maybe a low-cut blouse and more aggression next time? (Apologies in advance if it's the wrong topic to kid about.)
LB, you throw away your advantage right at the point of triumph. You had Di Kotimy on the ground and were poised to grind your spike heel into her face, but suddenly you went all Mother Theresa.
I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that in the interest of feminism, Di Kotimy would have been proud to be part of you omelette.
No question, John, it would have been an honor to be squashed by a luminary of LB's stature. Yet, I am nothing if not fragile and sensitive, and am therefore all the more grateful to have been the beneficiary of LB's merciful magnanimity.
It's probably something you've considered, but is there a local in-house counsel association? From the perspective of a close spectator, in-house doesn't have the same up-or-out dynamic.
I've looked around, and talked to a couple of recruiters, but haven't had much luck.
170
During the last op ed controversy (why not more op eds by women) it was mentioned that men were much more persistent in the face of rejection. So perhaps you should try again. Maybe they have stopped automatically rejecting Democrats.
it's discussions like these that make me so glad I don't have a job. I sometimes think, what if I had to go get some white-collar job? when they asked me my biggest weakness, could I really say 'near-fatal procrastination'? and what are my skillz, anyway?
1. knows lotsa dead languages
2. can edit the shit out of some stuff
3. cake-baking, watercolors and embroidery
4. words, words words
5. smart vs crazy--how will the struggle impact your bottom line??
6. can mix amazing cocktails
having never done anything much other than teaching people, I retain the innocent 'how do people end up with a given job, anyway?' attitude of a college sophomore.
I guess if it came down to it, I'd just have to go to law school.
179.6: Many bartenders are teetotalers, says my teetotalling brother, the ex-bartender. They tend to get sick of drunks, though.
