Chapter 8
Gender and Influence: Beyond Stereotypes
Coauthor, Nan Langowitz
Introduction
Influence would be easy if only everyone was just like you! But workplaces are becoming increasingly diverse with inevitable changes in demographics and technology. This chapter considers gender, one significant aspect of that increasing diversity, as the workplace has evolved to include more women at all levels than ever before. (Other demographic characteristics, such as race, sexual orientation, and cultural or ethnic backgrounds, can create similar challenges for developing and exerting influence, but space led us to focus only on gender.)
Here you'll find additional considerations that may warrant attention with respect to building influence and using the Cohen-Bradford Influence model. This isn't a catalog of all injustices inflicted on women by males and male-dominated organizations; that is another book. And contemporary life has a wide spectrum of male-female, male-male, and female-female behaviors that affect influence. You won't find “an answer,” because there is no one “right” approach. As in all things with people, each encounter, experience, and relationship is specific to the individuals involved. It's impossible to talk about “all women” or “all men” as monolithic groups, though many are tempted to do so, using their own experiences or popular books and articles propagating half-truths and catchy stereotypes.1
Though you may see some patterns in your own interactions, you recognize that every man is not necessarily like every other and that one woman is not necessarily like the next. Nonetheless, it's evident from everyday experience and the examples below, as well as patterns revealed or confirmed by research, that stereotypes and traditional gender expectations can readily create static in building relationships and developing influence, whether or not the stereotypes are true.
In fact, it is useful to remember the quote attributed to American humorist Will Rogers: “It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so.” Many women and men are convinced that they know how women and men behave, and we all sometimes slide into generalizations that seem right, but recent research has revealed numerous myths or less than fully true beliefs about behavior: such as women don't ask for raises,2 are more likely to leave their jobs or organizations,3 or don't want tough feedback.4 Due to such gender expectations, women and men often are treated in traditional ways, which create problems and dilemmas, and sometimes those treated according to the stereotypes react as if they were true. This chapter tries to help you understand some of the complexities, give you a chance to examine your assumptions and to explore those of your colleagues, and let you make more informed choices over time.
Our own experiences show that even those in this territory with heightened consciousness can easily slip back into old assumptions or stereotypes, especially when reinforced by friends or colleagues who—seriously or jokingly—make comments about “all women” or “all men.” Do many professional men frequently interrupt women at meetings? Do many women like to talk about relationships? Sure, but it's definitely not true of all, and even when a particular person does so, the reasons may be very different. So it's worth the effort to learn to test your own assumptions before leaping to conclusions and (if possible) to find a colleague as a partner in mutual friendly monitoring.
This chapter covers potential tendencies and behaviors related to gender issues that may impact your success in building relationships. Gender awareness may assist your leadership growth as well as prove valuable for specific use when deploying the influence without authority model to build influence. The goal is to offer you one more tool for building the most constructive alliances you can, enhancing your ability to get things done. We start with a brief primer on key mechanisms by which gender often comes into play in social interactions.
This will allow you to do the homework that increases the likelihood you can have the productive discussions that let you find out what is really going on with each person and engage in productive ways.
Some Key Mechanisms by Which Gender Can Influence Interpersonal Connection
Gender, a social construct irrespective of biological sex traits, differentiates between what is considered masculine and feminine.5 It creates accepted norms of social behavior and influences our assumptions about ourselves and others. Because gender is socially constructed, these norms may vary widely by region or context and are changing. What used to seem simple to many—men were men and women were women—has more nuance. Social norms for gender suggest particular attributes of behavior and attitudes that are considered acceptable for women and men. The result is typically an automatic linkage of certain characteristics as either feminine or masculine; certain authoritative characteristics (dominance, self-reliance, competitiveness, ambition, and aggressiveness) have often been associated with masculine gender, while communal or collaborative characteristics (friendliness, affection, gentleness, sensitivity, and sympathy) have usually been associated with feminine gender.6
Such automatic linkages, ingrained by social culture from an early age, in the absence of other data trigger implicit automatic assumptions about another person. Because our brains naturally work by quick categorization, fast associations or assumptions create the potential for unconscious bias;7 thus there is a risk of relying on socialized assumptions rather than actual interpersonal experience in judging the potential of a relationship. Too often, we “see” what we expect to see (and have been trained to expect) rather than what actually happens. And part of our natures automatically leap to fast conclusions that someone “like me” (even superficially) is more likely to be an ally with the same needs than those “not like me.”
In the workplace, most modern corporations and many nonprofit organizations have a hierarchy that values behaviors traditionally associated with (presumed) masculine characteristics. Expectations of leaders are frequently based on a masculine model of taking charge, so both men and women may sense misalignment between person and role (role incongruence) when women take leadership roles or use authoritative behaviors.8 “Think manager, think male” has been shown to be deeply ingrained in corporate life,9 and the stereotype that leaders are masculine persists10 despite the vastly increased presence of women in today's workplace.11
This can be a source of difficulties for women who pursue and take on leadership roles. An additional challenge for women is the potential to experience stereotype threat, which is to internalize the prevailing stereotypes of women and their capabilities.12 For example, the gender stereotype (not fact!) that “women aren't good at math” may lead to a loss of confidence in financial-based decision making. To counteract such a stereotype, another woman may insist on revisiting a financial analysis to “prove” that she's more than capable of handling quantitative thinking.
As more people who do not match the expected stereotype take organizational roles, opportunities for strong emotions, mixed expectations, and misunderstandings increase in all directions. This is most evident with increased attention to proportions of women in various jobs, especially managerial ones, and hiring patterns. We knew before we started the research for this chapter that the subject was loaded. But we have been struck by the level of intensity when we just mention our interest to almost everyone we encounter in organizations, male and female.
Men too are affected by these changing gender expectations. Do they have to stop and determine just what a female colleague expects from them? Do they support more gender-neutral relationships but find that others, male or female, disagree? Even if they don't believe that women are generally more emotional, do they have lingering concerns that the woman may cry if they have a tough conversation? Do they expect a female colleague to adapt to their ideas about proper gender behavior, or do they adapt, or can they discuss what is appropriate? Indeed, do they have different ideas about what is discussable, especially about relationships?
As an experienced female consultant told us:
Gender, race, [and] age are always in play. Whether we realize it or not, these demographics are always present and we are consciously or unconsciously responding to them. Even two men interacting with each other are taking account of gender even if it is the implicit automatic assumptions they are holding about how to relate [to] and influence each other. White males assume how they interact is normative and “make exceptions” when dealing with another's race or gender. The more we are aware, the more our responses can be appropriate (and we don't over- or under-respond).
In addition to reviewing the relevant literature, we conducted intense interviews with women who have dealt with gender issues at several levels of organizational life, sometimes brilliantly, sometimes with considerable struggle. We use their words and make complete interviews (disguised when necessary) available on our website, www.influencewithoutauthority.com, so their voices can let you arrive at your own conclusions about appropriate actions for you, since you know your own history, context, readiness to risk and accept consequences, and skill level. Many women we interviewed are aware of traditional socializing forces, but not controlled by them.
Indeed, numerous women have reported that using the IWA model has helped them determine how to counter the organizational gender barriers they found—and many men have discovered that clarifying their own assumptions benefits them and their female colleagues.
To see many of these issues in action, we start with the experiences of “Anna,” who worked in strategic planning at a not-for-profit organization we will call “A Better World.” It helped young at-risk girls who were likely to get pregnant and/or drop out of school.
Note how Anna successfully used the Influence without Authority model with Jane, Lisa, Norm, and the executive committee by determining what was important to them and exchanging that for what she needed:
- Jane. To avoid possible resentment, Anna went out of her way to get to know Jane informally and used her comparative quantitative strengths as support. She pushed back when Jane wanted others to present to the executive committee, arguing that Anna and Lisa's passion for the plan would be persuasive.
- Lisa. Lisa felt overwhelmed and feared being set up for failure. Anna used her strength in planning to lay out specific steps, making the process appear more doable. She arranged a dinner with a wealthy donor and the director of A Better World, whose enthusiasm helped convince Lisa. She bolstered Lisa about presenting to a large audience.
- Norm. This longtime board member was very resistant. Anna knew he was retiring soon and asked him to invite potential donors to the event so he could go out on a high note.
- Executive committee. Not used to unusual event designs. Anna's event included organizational clients and interaction, then followed up with survey and numerical data demonstrating impact.
This case raises many other issues frequently mentioned in other interviews.
Importance of the Cause over Self-Promotion
One maxim for successful change agents is to give credit to others for success and not to claim primary credit for oneself.13 This doesn't require being totally self-effacing, just not claiming all the credit or failing to generously recognize the contributions of others. This is true for both men and women. Nonetheless, women, like Anna have been socialized toward modesty and communal focus and may overemphasize praising others' efforts while downplaying their own role. They do not consider helping others accomplish goals as an exchange for personal benefit but as help in achieving a higher cause. For example, a manager we interviewed said: “In being task-focused, my emphasis is on the job (and helping the other be successful); it is not on myself or trying to prove my competence. My concern is that the last can be threatening to a man. Women, more than men, have to put their ego aside.”
On the one hand, this approach of keeping your ego in check can build trust and minimize jealousy or competitive feelings. On the other hand, as another experienced manager put it, “This can also lead to not getting one's quo for the quid put in. Not only are women often socialized to more easily ‘give' than ask, but it might be more risky for them to ask.” This can be compounded when some women internalize any doubt toward them, which at its worst makes them question whether they deserve positive outcomes.
Note that Anna didn't fall into that trap; she pushed for her and Lisa to give the opening presentation. But again, she made the case from her belief in the larger purpose (generating executive committee enthusiasm), not for self-promotion.
Centrality of Relationships
Many respondents talked about how important relationships are, not just as a means to produce successful influence, but as an end in and of itself. Relationships for them are a currency valuable in their own right, so they don't even like thinking of them as means, as if that somehow cheapens them.
I care for the other and this orientation keeps it from just being instrumental. I would not feel complete if I just got what I wanted. Instead, my viewpoint is “Have I helped them?” I care about the organization, my department, my team, my colleagues and, yes, I need to get things done.
This orientation can have a series of benefits:
- It can increase the willingness to work on relationships, as Anna did in going out of her way to connect with Jane.
- It can increase the effort to understand the others' world and what they value (their currencies). Anna figured out what Lisa needed to get on board, as well as Norm's needs. Furthermore, it helped her to go beneath the surface in understanding others. When Lisa had her anxiety attack, some in Anna's position could easily have concluded that Lisa wasn't fit for the job. But she had a deeper understanding of Lisa and supported her as a copresenter even when Lisa didn't think she could do it.
It leads to proactivity as a general stance. For example, here is how Crystal Bryant gains influence. She is vice-president, chief of staff to the chairman and CEO of First Republic Bank. Her expertise is not finance (she was a music major in college), but she leverages her relationships to get things done.
In my role, I have authority over no one—in the sense that I have few direct reports and few people taking precise direction from me. But I have built relationships, and I have learned the importance of inspiring people to action rather than directing them specifically. Developing relationships and building trust is a big part of influence in my world. I collect people from different areas of business to get things done and when I ask someone if they want to be part of what I am working on, almost no one says no. I encourage them to contribute in their own way, and I work hard to do the same by adding value to their activities. I try to get to know them personally and find out what they need. And then I leverage my network to help them. If I can help them make something happen, connect dots across the organization, get a faster answer from our CEO, or enlist resources that wouldn't have been otherwise available, we all win. I never expect something in return; it is for the collective good. We are all on the same team.
As we have indicated, men as well as women often build relationships that enable exchanges that help accomplish work. Creating credit or positive “bank accounts” to build long-term relationships that one can draw on as needed is exactly what savvy organizational members do.14 Nevertheless, men—or women—who think relationships are important only for short-term transactions are generally less influential and less trusted. It is likely, however, that a higher proportion of women value relationships as a high-priority currency in and of itself, due to either socialization about the importance of relationships or fundamental wiring—or probably both. That may become a potential and possibly under-recognized source of long-term influence.
A related question is whether women are better able to explore emotionally based issues when necessary. If their socialization leads them to explore the emotional realm more, this is likely. One manager suggested:
Even though I try to understand the other before meeting with them, and am listening to what they say, that is often not enough when the other person is resistant. It takes probing and often the issues have a more emotional cause. Men are more likely to continue to make the logical argument and if they are probing for resistance, it is likely to be on factual/logical issues. I think women are better able to get at the emotional issues, which are ones men might back away from.
If a greater interest in and focus on relationships has these benefits, is there also a potential downside where the concern for building and preserving relationships can supersede other outcomes?
I think women, and it is true for me, place greater values on approval, acceptance, and positive relationships. One consequence is that, at times, I find it hard to ask for things for myself. I ask myself, “How much of an imposition is this? Am I asking far too much? Does this feel fair?” Putting my own needs first is hard. I am more likely to worry about whether I am using the other, not being used.
Insofar as women may prefer relationship-building, does this ever cause them to give away potential power or influence? Do others expect this of women and seek to take advantage of that tendency or get upset when women don't?
In addition, it can be difficult for anyone to hold to demanding standards with subordinates and colleagues when they have close personal relationships. Many managers believe that they should keep a distance from those who report to them in order to remain objective. That tendency can be true for males and females, but it can actually decrease influence and effectiveness.
It is possible to care and be close and still hold to high standards as illustrated by the story of Jack Welch, then CEO of GE, and Jeff Immelt, successor CEO and then one of his key VPs. Jack and Jeff were good friends and their families often had barbecues together. At a management retreat, Jack took Jeff aside and said, “Jeff, you know I love you like a brother, but another quarter like the last one [at GE Plastics] and you will be gone!”15 Gender norms may make the sometimes requisite leadership behavior of balancing strong personal connection with strong feedback hard for men and women in different ways; it's worth considering what that feels like for you.
Issues around Relating (and the Process of Building Relationships)
If female gender expectations cause a greater proportion of women to excel at relationship building, that can be an advantage in creating conditions for influence. Recent research on emotional intelligence as a key determinant of success in many occupations supports that women could be at an advantage for their presumed greater social interest and skills.16 But it also can create complications.
Several women we interviewed spoke of walking a greater tightrope than they thought men walked.
Men are more easily “forgiven” if they are primarily task-focused with poorer relational skills. This is less so for women, who would be seen as “cool/cold” and aloof. The expectation is that they will be good at relational issues and, if not, they will pay greater penalty than a male would.
I am actually a fairly logical task-oriented person and this helps with relationships. It is a mode of interacting that men tend to be more comfortable with. But I can overdo it and have to remind myself to also use my affective side in building relationships.
Another dimension is the ability to work across differences in work styles and resolve them. As discussed in Chapter 6, everybody has their own way of getting work done; of making decisions, influencing others, and being influenced in turn. Some like to focus on problems, others on opportunities; some like a lot of analysis where for others that is less important. Part of influencing others is understanding how they want to be dealt with.
- One of the effects of socialization is that people from the same culture, background (and gender) are more likely to have somewhat of a common understanding—a set of agreed upon rules about how to deal with each other, at least superficially. Men start with some understanding of how to relate to/influence men (as is likely to be the case with women to women). But this may be less true between genders.
- Most people pick up cues, see what works and what doesn't, and (at times) may even discuss how they need to work together (more about that below).
- In the best of all possible worlds, both parties adapt to the other, each giving what is most important to the other in exchange for what is most important to the self.
But this is modified by several factors. One is power; those with lower power tend to give way to those with greater, so subordinates are more likely to modify their style to fit the boss than the other way around. Another could be gender. While the world is changing, traditionally women have adapted (at home and at work) more to men than the other way around. As another respondent said:
When interacting with men, I see my job as making them comfortable with me. I tend to be task focused. Part of that is because I get satisfaction from task success, but as much, it is because I think that will make the man comfortable.
Again, this isn't true of all women. And with increased emphasis on emotional intelligence, many men have learned the importance of social skills to influence and produce success. But if women are more likely to feel this more strongly, is it a double-edged sword? Does an increased awareness of the other person's world and needs (currencies) yield a greater ability to set up win-win exchanges? Or does a greater concern for “the relationship to go well” mean that they give up too much too readily? As one woman noted:
Are men likely to have a harder time with a woman disagreeing than with a man? Often the man's self-image is that he ought to have the answer. My initial entry is likely to be more cautious, and I have to be careful that my history doesn't get me to be overly cautious.
Another said,
I think it is more “costly” for a man to “lose” [an argument] to a woman than to another man, so I sometimes wonder how far can I push on an issue before that fear gets activated. And if I push too far, is there no coming back?
But at times it is crucial to push back. Judi Wise, at the time an independent consultant, faced this with the possibility that she could have lost a consulting project, but she believed in her position.
I had a contract to develop training materials for a company that was implementing SAP. They had a broad array of employees ranging from scientist PhDs, accountants, and rock quarry workers, and it would be difficult for them to understand the implementation, as it is everywhere. I suggested stories, with “SAP” as one of the characters, who influenced other characters, and have it narrated so when in training, the stories could be segmented. Then we could ask the trainees what horror stories about SAP they had heard.
I wanted to use a professional woman narrator, but I got strong resistance because the company was southern and they were afraid that would be too soft. I argued that it depended on the quality of the voice, and it could lessen fear. I had to argue all the way up to the CEO, who finally agreed. We recorded it and got the outcomes we wanted. Might have been different if I hadn't stood up and pushed for a woman.
Another talked about being careful of the setting when disagreeing with men.
I am conscious of the setting when I disagree and more likely to do it one-on-one. I am especially conscious if the man is with other men because I am concerned how he will feel in front of other men if I disagree with him.
Being judicious, though good, could stifle disagreements in group settings. Also, you don't always have choices. How do you raise a man's problematic behavior in a way that can enhance influence? Here is a tough example from an internal training and development employee at an insurance company that utilizes physicians to train other physicians. Physicians can often be a difficult audience.
I was training physicians on meeting facilitation, including how to handle difficult situations. During the session, a physician storms in, looks me up and down, picks up the material, folds it, stares at me, sits down and folds his arms. Then he starts arguing with another physician about why they had to come to such a meeting. I said, “OK, take a break.” Another physician came up and said he was sorry, and I replied that I appreciated it. The other one said nothing. When I started the meeting again, I said, “Sometimes someone comes in late, looks you up and down, etc., and not everyone will like you. Physicians don't always want to be trained by a person who is not a physician. What do you do?”
We had a great discussion and my problem physician opened the book, started paying attention, and wasn't any further trouble.
What was so skillful about this approach is that she didn't avoid the issue, but bypassed setting up an interpersonal win-lose situation by turning it into a learning opportunity (and having the peers of the problematic member indirectly speak to his disruptive behavior).
Can We Talk About This? The Challenge of Discussing Forbidden Subjects
As mentioned above (an approach stressed throughout the book), the ability to openly discuss issues that are getting in the way of finding common ground is valuable.
But that assumes not only that you have the skills to hold these “difficult conversations” but that they are considered legitimate in the first place (which they may not have been in the previous example). Traditionally, “talking about our relationship” has been seen as (feminine) “touchy-feely” talk. Will the woman be seen as weak if she directly raises it? But that doesn't have to be the case, as this situation illustrates.
I was running a workshop on authentic leadership and after the event, but with some people still milling around in the room, the CEO came up to me and out of the blue, called me an asshole. Even though everyone knew that he was like a high-school guy who was quite crude and not really malicious, I was totally unprepared. Men don't usually call you an asshole openly. I couldn't believe it. He held my future in his hands. I felt bad, angry, but I decided not to confront him there. When I got back to my room, I thought, “I don't let people call me names.” The next day, I went to him and said, “I didn't appreciate what you did in front of others, and wouldn't have even if we were alone; I don't let anyone treat me that way.” He looked stunned. His response was “Oh, I was just trying to be real.” I replied, “That's not OK.” He never called me a name again and we got on well afterwards. He was still the same somewhat sexist guy in general, but treated me with more respect. It changed our relationship.
In this case, she decided not to confront him in front of others, fearing that he would be either backed into a corner or too embarrassed. But her sense of her own worth overcame her concerns (along with her confidence that in the worst case she could find another job), and she directly told him that what he did wasn't acceptable. She didn't say, “Oh, you hurt my feelings, and I would like to discuss how you could be so hurtful,” nor did she ask for an explanation. She just directly declared “that isn't acceptable,” and he backed down.
Another alternative, consistent with lessons from authentic leadership as well as demonstrating her demands for being respected, might have been to say something like, “If you didn't like something I was doing I don't mind getting feedback from you, and I can take it, but publicly calling me a name is not only useless but just plain hurtful. That isn't acceptable.” That might have been her response to his weak attempt to justify his behavior by saying that he was just trying to be real, as if there are no appropriate boundaries for authenticity. But of course it isn't always so easy to think of just the right counterpoint in just the perfect language while under incoming fire!
Context Matters. What's the Gender Ratio?
Another factor in building relationships is taking into account who's in the room or situation. While this includes things like power and roles, gender can be an important aspect, too; the proportion of women (or any other minority in a group) creates context. There is a big difference between being the only one or a few women and being part of a more evenly mixed group.17 In the former, men are more likely to set the rules of engagement, consciously or not, thus limiting how much influence a woman can have. Nancy faced that as the only woman in an internal staff group.
I was the only woman working with seven men as part of an internal consulting group that served other divisions in the company. We were a new department, so part of our job was to show the other departments how we could be of help. Demand was slowly growing, but we were impatient.
In one of our staff meetings, the topic came up whether we should significantly increase the size of our group to twelve—[almost] a 50% increase. “Let's go for it.” “If we build something, they will come.” I was concerned because the company had an internal billing system so the different staff groups were expected to “pay their own way” by getting enough internal work to cover all costs. If we hired this many more people and there wasn't a corresponding increase in internal business, we would be in the red—and that was something the company frowned upon.
I raised these concerns, but was soon shouted down. “Let's show that we are to be taken seriously.” This all seemed very “high-school-macho,” but I felt that I couldn't say that. This issue wasn't being discussed on rational business terms, but more personally. Even though I had a reasonably good relationship with my colleagues, it wasn't of the sort that I thought I could get away with questioning their motives—especially those.
Feeling totally outnumbered and blocked from having any influence in the total group, she tried a different strategy.
Instead, I decided to have a series of individual informal meetings with each of them. But this didn't turn out to be very successful. I saw Steve as a key person, and if I could influence him, then there might be some chance with the others. I pointed out to him that if we were seen as begging for business, it could lower our prestige as contrasted to having more demand than we could meet. In the latter case, the other departments would be supporters of our increasing staffing rather than seeing us as empire building.
But all my arguments appeared to fall on deaf ears. Steve came back with strong enthusiasm. “You are too cautious; we can do it if we show our confidence.” My talks with others produced the same reactions, so the decision was made to hire the new four members.
As Nancy feared, they could not generate enough business over the next two years to keep all twelve fully employed. She had argued her position not out of self-interest but for the department. Nancy had built enough relationships in the company to be fully booked personally, but finance continued to badger the group for its deficits. Her actions also didn't interfere with her peer work relationships. “I continued to work well with my colleagues, including a successful project with Steve.”
But the issue still lingered for her.
I continued to feel annoyed at what I thought was an impulsive, not thought-out action. I didn't want to rub their noses into it, but I also didn't want this to pass unmentioned. I thought, “If I were a man, I could point out that their ‘penis competition' didn't work out well,” but I knew that would be alienating, even emasculating.
So I held myself back and when the year-end figures came in, I went up to Steve and, smiling, I asked, “How is that working out? I understand we haven't made budget in the last two years.” Steve laughed and said, “Guess you have seen the results.”
This satisfied my need to bring up the issue and I continued to work well with the group. But what lingered with me was the resentment that I had to hold myself back both initially and afterwards. A guy could have been more direct.
Crystal Bryant faced a similar situation in a group with super-macho norms but handled it differently.
I was a music major at Indiana University; there were 40–50 trombone performance majors, and I was the only “girl.” Life as a female trombonist was not without challenges; the easiest way to overcome them was to be better than other players. But's it's not really that simple. Being good at what I do helped me gain respect, but that's not the same thing as gaining acceptance. That was more personal. And it's definitely easier if you are “one of the guys.” Most musicians make a living by freelancing, which means relationships matter, because people tend to hire those with whom they like to work. Of course, I wanted to be liked. While I could never be a “guy,” I could still build relationships with my colleagues and be a fun, nonjudgmental friend. And it turns out that we were not all that different. We drank, we laughed, we played practical jokes on each other. We also watched marathon opera DVDs, listened to orchestra recordings together, and played chamber music late into the night. To this day, those guys are some of my closest friends, and I even married one of them.
In another case, Yin, a short, slight-looking Chinese American engineer working for a wind-power company, told us:
I am aware that because I am female, and actually a physically small female, people don't see power/authority through me, but they don't see me as a threat either. This means that they could be less defensive/insecure in front of me since they don't need to show they are more powerful than me. Most of the time, I am totally OK that they think I am less powerful, because it means I can influence them in my own way.…When I get out of the truck at the wind-farm, the men look at me wondering what I am doing there. But I am the first one up the pole and can talk as loudly as they can. It's not a problem and sort of fun. [I] climb the 100-meter tall tower…with similar pace though I had the option to use the elevator, but I know the norm in the field is technicians with tools use elevator and the others climb to save time.
I ask lots of questions, and some of them are not true questions, “Why didn't we do it this way? Can you help me understand it better?” All those questions help me understand their motivations, worries, and make them to rethink their decisions as well. Then I will offer help to do more analysis, to facilitate conversations with whichever party needed, etc. Eventually, I achieve the changes I intended through others, and they feel they are part of…I will give them as much credibility as I can. The truly powerful people do not feel the need to show off. [I] go deep to technical stuff right away so they know I know the design and I can tell them things they don't know, how certain technical decisions are made and my hypothesis of the problem. Most times, they are very surprised/shocked and it became easier for me to get all the info I need and even more, and they will provide the help I need.
Years ago, Mary Barra, now CEO of GM, deftly called out harassing behavior (and got it to stop), enhancing how she was perceived while building relationships and influence and honing valuable career skills.
As a new engineering graduate, her job was to find ways to open communications with line workers at an assembly plant. Whenever she walked through the plant, she was greeted by a shrill wolf whistle from a particular employee and catcalls and stares from others. After several such encounters, she stopped and asked the wolf whistler what he was doing. Taken aback, he replied that he wanted to attract her attention. She responded that if he wanted her attention he should just say “hi,” and she would respond the same way. He did, and after that they greeted each other when she came by, and soon others quieted down also.
This experience helped shape Barra's future leadership style, a key aspect of which consists of trying to look at the world through other people's eyes. She told author Joann Lublin, “I have this fundamental belief that everybody is pretty rational.…If you can understand what is motivating them or change what is motivating them, you can accomplish things.”18
Even early in her career, Mary Barra could avoid getting hooked on inappropriate, harassing behavior and instead move into inquiry, assuming that the employee might actually be a “potential ally,” which he indeed became. Such reframing can be a very useful way of breaking through automatic stereotypes or assumptions, as can unexpected use of humor. Again, as noted earlier, staying even-tempered in the flash of interactions isn't always easy, but you can build up better reflexes over time if you practice.
These ways of fitting in can be adaptive or educational, and the cost they carry will vary for each woman. Crystal, Yin, or Mary Barra don't seem to think that they were “selling their souls,” but others might. The challenge is to try stepping back and considering possible choices, since you often have more options than may at first appear. To keep from being trapped with “no choice,” keep seeking what currencies the other person seems to be seeking, what forces are likely to be driving the desire for those currencies, and how you might address those in some other way.
Self-Confidence
Many examples throughout this book have described how a person faced challenges when introducing something new, which frequently involves dealing with opposition and resistance without the full or sufficient support of formal authority. In many cases, people question not only the wisdom of the change effort but the initiator's ability to do the job. This also often requires persistence.
Here is a situation that Judi Wise faced when she was trying to build an independent consulting business:
I was on a flight from Salt Lake City to Omaha and was sitting next to an engineer, who was a director at Union Pacific Railway. We discussed his needs, and I proposed a contract. (Since this was an organization of men, and it was the railroad, they usually didn't use women contractors.) But he was interested and made a verbal commitment on the plane. But then I didn't hear anything. I called him three days later, and he said, “Oh yeah, I remember,” but then weeks went by. I felt put off and didn't know if he just liked me on the plane ride because he was drinking. After several weeks, I called again, said, “I was the woman on the airplane; where do you stand on funding?” He said he was waiting for funding. I kept calling, I was going to do it until he said, “No, go away.”
Many people would have given up after the first or second phone call. She was not impervious when the director didn't respond. In fact, she reported, “At first I felt insecure, threatened, didn't know what he was thinking about me,” but she persisted—and eventually got the contract.
Having doubts is reasonable. No one can be certain of success in a new and challenging project involving resistant stakeholders and untried methods. In the above example, Judi strongly believed that she could come through. But what if this were truly a new project, like Anna's at A Better World. Anna had no assurance that she would succeed. What would happen if she failed and the conference presentation she planned bombed? She might not have lost her job, but would her standing and reputation in the organization suffer? Would she have less influence in the future and lose interesting assignments (and promotions)?
Lisa in that situation had major doubts. First, could she and Anna come up with a program that would “reach peoples' hearts,” and then, even if they did, would she be able to give the opening presentation before 800 people? (It took Anna's persistent support to keep Lisa on board, and such external support isn't always available.)
Men as well as women have such doubts, but gender socialization and lived experience may combine to create higher hurdles for confidence among women in many situations. One successful leader admitted:
One of the major problems is a lack of confidence. When I think of taking on a new task or make a request, I wonder, “Do I have what it takes? Do I deserve this?” I think a lot of this comes from socialization. Teachers call on boys more than they call on girls. Men don't get interrupted as often as women. Men don't nearly as often experience a comment they make getting ignored and then repeated ten minutes later by a man and acknowledged.19 All of this raises internal questions of “how much value do I have?”
Another woman offered,
I think men and women respond differently when questions are raised about either the project or their ability to do it. Men see it as a challenge, whereas women go into self-doubt. Also, men often hide self-doubt and pretend confidence to the outside world even when they don't feel it inside.
Clearly that isn't true for all men or all women. For example, Anna liked challenges; that was one reason she took on the project when the planning team had first failed.
Sometimes overt acts can undermine, as Kate McKone-Sweet (now a college professor) reported.
I was a new engineering college grad and got a job at Procter & Gamble in charge of a production area with 60 people. They were all older than me, ranging from 30 to 60 years old. For each 15-person team there was a line leader and an assistant line leader. The line leader on the third shift wouldn't talk to me, and I was his manager! He would just leave when I tried to talk to him. His line was one of the best, but he wouldn't say why he was so successful.
Kate was faced with what could be seen as insubordination as well as disrespect.
I don't handle anger well so I didn't respond to that. I attributed the situation more to age than to gender and felt that I had to gain trust. I would go in late at night to see how he did it. Turned out that he jerry-rigged equipment. But he didn't want to do paper work, so I did it for him and got him recognition for it. My sense was that was how to handle him.
It doesn't mean that I avoided conflict when necessary. One time, one of his favorite techs messed up, causing a big quality problem. I pulled the tech in, chewed him out, swore plenty, but gave him a break. Then I really let loose and swore to the line leader, ending with, “If this ever happens again, there will be big consequences!” After that, he still didn't talk to me much, but it built some trust, and he would do what was needed. I think it was the swearing that did it.
This still doesn't answer the question of why some (men and women) have self-confidence and others don't. Anna said, “Because I believe in this cause” (and she knew she could get another job). Crystal got confidence from being as good as or better than most other trombone players (and probably from being accepted by her peers). Judi kept going because, she said, “I believed in what I had to offer and the money was significant to my business, so I was going to fight for it.” Lisa presented to a large audience despite her fear because of Anna's support.
But the internal demon of self-doubt is something that probably everybody, male and female, has to struggle with. Judi went on to say:
Getting the railroad contract was a transformative experience. I went from being insecure, questioning, to believing in myself. That I could win other contracts while waiting helped. I was very worried about what people thought of me at the time; I needed to learn to not worry about what others think, since you can't control that, though I still sometimes do. I just go with my proposals because it is the right thing. I struggled a long time with that. You don't want to come off as too emotional, but not as not caring. It's a big balancing act.
No one wants to be told “no,” get rejected. I used to be emotionally drenched, focused on one negative evaluation no matter how many positive ones there were. Over time I had to look at what I was good at, what I wanted to be, if I wanted to be a woman in business, not be aggressive but assertive, stand by my services, not be unable to give quality services if I am told no, be able to talk to people in a boardroom so that they listen, not just pay attention to how I look. You have to go through this evolution of self-discovery.
Nevertheless, for women, even quite successful ones, a residue of reluctance to advocate for themselves can remain. Listen to Bonnie, who has built a very successful consulting firm:
I struggle, as a consultant, asking for the rates my male colleagues get. One has less training than I have but charges top rates—three to four times what I do—and he gets them! He says, “One out of three prospective clients should complain that my rates are too high.” I worry about disappointing a client, which causes me to “low-ball” my rates. I tell myself that I would rather undercharge and overdeliver than be perceived as not providing the value the client has purchased.
Where does this come from? Part of this is a lack of confidence in my competitive competence—even though I have built a million-dollar business. But part of it is historic. I am the first-generation college graduate from immigrant grandparents who struggled through the Great Depression. But part is my mother's voice. I was instructed not to “toot my own horn” but just to work hard and that would be rewarded.
The irony is that I am a very successful recruiter and skilled at negotiating highly attractive compensation packages for my clients. But it is different when it comes to negotiating for myself. My alpha white male clients rarely struggle with this issue in the same way. But I have observed that female leaders are much better advocating for their teams than for their own compensation needs.
In addition to Bonnie's explanations for her success in negotiation on behalf of clients, recent research suggests that women find it easier to advocate on behalf of others because then there is no concern about gender stereotype backlash. They may not be fully aware of this kind of concern, but it may undermine confidence when they are asking the maximum for themselves.20 Similarly, the McKinsey study (note 2 in this chapter) had as one conclusion, “The probability that a woman was going to be perceived as bossy, aggressive, intimidating—words that we specifically asked about—versus men who asked for the same thing…was almost 30 percent more likely.” As the beginning of this chapter noted, gender is complex.
The Dilemma of Gaining Confidence
We wish it were true that there is a shortcut to:
- Gaining the confidence needed to willingly explore what is important to others, even if that seems threatening in some situations, and
- Acquiring greater confidence about pushing back against comments or actions, intentional or inadvertent, that reduce your influence (especially when you believe the resistance is inappropriately gender-based).
Gender dynamics may add an additional nuance to building confidence, if you don't come by it naturally. Yet we know that it is impossible to gain confidence without taking action in a difficult situation and somehow succeeding or at least surviving, as several women described above did. While there are no guarantees, we believe that greater awareness of the dynamics and complexities of gender, especially as gender expectations are changing, can be helpful. We also believe that a posture of inquiry helps a lot; instead of leaping to assumptions about what others mean or intend, get in the habit of asking nonjudgmentally and then listening carefully to the answer for an opening that will allow you to exert savvier influence.
Conclusions
This entire book is about the factors that let you have influence when you have no formal authority. As applied to gender, these include:
- Seeing the other as a potential ally even when the person is very different, resistant, or hostile, as was true with several of the examples. Don't write anyone off without a lot of exploration; they may be making erroneous assumptions about you based on gender misconceptions, and vice versa.
- Fully understanding their world, including the factors in the organization that drive them, such as how they are measured and rewarded, what their boss expects, and the culture of their unit.
- Being aware of your (primary) goals. What are your needs, and how do they relate to your task objectives? What risks are you willing to take? What will you accept short term? Can you determine how to balance task effectiveness and relationship?
- What is the nature of the relationship and how does the other person want to be related to? Can you adapt to that? Can you discuss the relationship without becoming uncomfortable when someone is not used to it?
- What is a win-win exchange so that you meet your goals and the other also does? Can you negotiate exchanges collaboratively even when the other person is trying only to win?
This book demonstrates that achieving all this is not easy. But as this chapter shows, it can be made easier when you take into account gender and gender relationships. The dynamics can make the situation incredibly complex. On the one hand, suggesting universal solutions would be presumptuous, given the wide range of the ways men and women see and respond to this topic. On the other hand, we can offer you dimensions or dilemmas to help frame your considerations, in the hope that you can now work through them better in your own way.
Though this chapter may inadvertently sound as if it is addressed primarily to women, men also must face gender assumptions and expectations and determine how to account for or escape them when they limit possibilities.
Caution, however, should not shut down increased self-awareness or continuing curiosity. This chapter might be a guide to places where you should pay close attention, test assumptions, ask clarifying questions, acknowledge your own blind spots, and ask for advice from or have exploratory conversations with friendly colleagues, who are likely to be pleased when you want their views on these matters. Remember that gender is just one aspect in influence strategy, though if you had not invested prior thought or work on it before, hopefully you are better primed now. Nevertheless, it is a territory in which we all need to explore and learn. Good luck.