Marcela knows, in private, that she has accomplished a great deal,
but she’s aware of the risks entailed in publicly acknowledging this. She
also admitted that if she doesn’t receive an award or a bonus that she
feels she deserves, “I would never ask for it. If it wasn’t freely given, I
wouldn’t ask for it. I might gripe about it at home, but that would be
the extent of it.”
Ways of Asking and Getting
Ellen, the senior partner at a law firm, told us that when she was a
teenager, her father said to her: “Honey, you know you can’t act like a
tiger. You have to act like a kitten.” His point was clear: To get what
she wants, a woman can’t be too aggressive or direct. Although society
has changed in many ways since Ellen was a child, women still need to
be careful about “coming on too strong.” Fortunately, women can be
careful and—some of the time—still get what they want. Recent re-
104
S C A R I N G T H E B O Y S
search has identified ways for women to be influential and effective
without making themselves less likeable and bringing social sanctions
down on their heads. This research has shown that for women, the key
to safely and successfully exercising their influence is to be “nice.” Like
being likeable, being “nice” is expected of women—it’s a gender norm
requirement. To be “nice,” a woman must seem friendly, act concerned
about the needs and feelings of others, and avoid being confrontational.
Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of this approach for
women.
The social psychologists Linda Carli, Suzanne LaFleur, and Christo-
pher Lober videotaped male and female research assistants trying to
persuade their peers to agree with a particular point of view—in this
case, that it would be better not to make any changes in the cafeteria
meal plan at their university (an unpopular opinion to hold). The re-
searchers videotaped eight different versions of the same script, four
with a man making the argument and four with a woman. The text and
the message were the same in all eight versions, but the actors in the
videos were coached to use different nonverbal behavior strategies in
each: a “dominant style” (making constant eye contact, using a lot of
hand gestures, speaking in a loud angry voice, and tightening their face
muscles so that they appeared tense); a “submissive style” (avoiding eye
contact, making nervous gestures with their hands, speaking in a soft
unsteady voice, stammering and hesitating, slouching); a “task-oriented
style” (frequently making eye contact, using only calm hand move-
ments, speaking rapidly and with few hesitations); and a “social style”
(leaning toward the audience, using unintrusive gestures, acting re-
laxed, communicating “friendliness and affiliation,” smiling). After the
researchers screened the videotapes for mixed male and female audi-
ences, they asked them to rate how much they agreed with each speak-
er’s point of view (this served as an overall measure of the speaker’s
ability to influence); they also asked them to rate each speaker on a
number of qualities, such as how likeable, competent, and threatening
he or she seemed.71 The audiences found that male speakers were most
influential when they used a “task-oriented style” (rather than any other
style) but that a “social style” worked best for women.
Other research by the sociologist Cecilia Ridgeway supports this
finding. Placing female confederates in mixed male and female groups
that were instructed to make a series of decisions, she found that the
women were most influential in the groups when they were “friendly,
cooperative, confident, but nonconfrontational, and considerate.”72
105
C H A P T E R 4
They were able to exert far less influence on the group’s decision making
when they acted merely self-confident and behaved in a self-interested
way. This finding and the results of another study led Ridgeway to con-
clude: “Women seeking to assert authority can mitigate the legitimacy
problems they face by combining their assertive, highly competent be-
haviors with positive social ‘softeners.’ . . . Using such techniques,
highly competent women can overcome others’ resistance and win in-
fluence and compliance. . . . The positive consequences of such tech-
niques are not trivial. They allow very competent women to break
through the maze of constraints created by gender status to wield au-
thority. This begins to undermine the structural arrangements in society
that support gender status beliefs.”73
The psychologists Laurie Rudman and Peter Glick, in a study looking
at hiring situations, produced similar results: Women were more likely
to be hired when they paired competence with “communal” behavior
(such as demonstrating an interest in the needs and challenges of those
hiring them) than when they paired competence with more “agentic”
behavior (such as focusing more on their own needs and ambitions).74
As Rudman and Glick write, self-oriented or “agentic” women “are
viewed as socially deficient, compared with identically presented
men.”75 Being perceived as “socially deficient” may make a woman seem
threatening. At the very least, it can make her seem less likeable and
reduce her ability to influence others and get what she wants.
All of these studies tell us that when women go into a negotiation,
in addition to arming themselves with information, ideas, and resolve,
they must also bring along an arsenal of “friendly,” nonthreatening so-
cial mannerisms; they must be prepared to be cooperative and inter-
ested in the needs of others; and they must avoid being confronta-
tional.76 This does not mean they need to back down or give in. Imagine
that a woman who likes her job but feels underpaid receives a job offer
from another company for more money. If she goes into her boss’s office
and says “I’ve received an offer for $xx,000 more and I’m going to take
it if you don’t match that salary,” he may react badly to her direct ap-
proach and tell her to take the other job. Starting out with something
like, “Hi, I need to talk to you about my salary; is now a good time?” can
set a different tone for the negotiation. Demonstrating that she knows he
has many demands on his time shows concern for him and his situation.
If he agrees to talk, she could explain that she’s been offered the other
job and mention the salary that goes with it. Then she might say, “I
106
S C A R I N G T H E B O Y S
really enjoy working for you, but I have to consider this offer because
it’s for so much more money. You’ve always treated me fairly and I want
to be fair to you by letting you know about this offer.” She might also
say that she’ll stay if he matches the salary she’s been offered. This will
not only reinforce that she cares about the relationship, it will also frame
the situation positively (she wants to stay) rather than posing it as a
threat (she’ll go if he doesn’t meet her demands).
Although this approach can often produce better results, many
women (including the two of us) may resent that women have to work
so hard not to offend in this type of situation. As Ridgeway writes, “there
is a price associated with such techniques as well: They inadvertently
reaffirm gender stereotypes that require women to be ‘nicer’ than men
in order to exercise equivalent power and authority.”77 Rudman and
Glick also concede that this puts an extra burden on women: “Treading
the fine line of appearing competent, ambitious, and competitive, but
not at the expense of others, is a tall order. . . . To the extent that women
have to maintain a ‘bilingual’ impression of themselves (as both nice
and able) in order not to be perceived as overbearing and dominant,
their situation is more difficult and tenuous in comparison to their male
counterparts.”78
The psychologist Janice Yoder goes further: “Relying on women
themselves to compensate for structural inequities is inherently unfair,
even to successful women, and makes less successful women vulnerable
to self-blame and victim blaming from others.”79 Although this is un-
doubtedly true, more pragmatic scholars prefer to point to the positive
aspects of these findings, which can, in fact, help women. Social psy-
chologist Linda Carli argues that more friendly, social behaviors need
not be seen as expressing weakness or an excessive desire to please since
studies show that communal behaviors (such as smiling) do not suggest
low status.80 She believes that pairing assertive and communal behaviors
can allow women to become more successful and that these behaviors
can be a source of real power. And while earlier research has suggested
that acting tentative, apologetic, and uncertain (the Bully Broads ap-
proach) can also reduce the threat competent women pose in male do-
mains, this type of behavior has the negative side-effect of making
women appear less competent.81 Using a friendly, social style provides
a more attractive alternative, since it minimizes the threat posed by a
woman in a leadership role while still communicating competence and
self-confidence.
107
C H A P T E R 4
Whether or not this advice seems offensive or useful, it appears that
successful women have taken heed. Research on the leadership styles
of men and women has found that highly successful women do employ
more communal types of behavior and a softer style than equally suc-
cessful men.82 An article in the June 10, 2002, issue of Fortune provides a good example of a woman whose social style has clearly helped her
gain great power and influence in her field. The article, about the stock
research firm Sanford C. Bernstein, described the personal style of the
firm’s then-chair and CEO, Sally Krawcheck, 37. Sanford C. Bernstein
was famous for making tough calls and never pulling its punches. Bern-
stein would downgrade a stock every other firm was promoting and
put out “buy” recommendations on stocks no one else wanted to touch.
And the firm had an excellent track record for making good calls, which
turns out to be unusual for securities analysts. How did Krawcheck
succeed in running such a hard-hitting, uncompromising enterprise
without suffering the punishment many women encounter for rising
too high in their professions? What allowed her to become such an
effective leader in a male-dominated field without being called a bitch
or being sent to Bully Broads? Explained writer David Rynecki: “She
has a gracious, refined manner that masks her toughness.”83
Smart Women, Smart Choices
How can the information we’ve presented in this chapter help women
ensure that their work is fairly evaluated and free them to pursue their
professional and personal ambitions without fear of punishment? We
see three courses.
The first and perhaps most obvious is for women to start their own
businesses. As the C200 Index figures demonstrated, many women
have already given up trying to get fair treatment in conventional busi-
ness settings and have decided to strike out on their own.
A second possibility is for women who work in male-dominated
industries or organizations to do everything they can to reduce their
token status: recruiting other women to their fields and their firms;
mentoring younger women and helping them rise to higher levels; and
working actively to build networks of women that can provide the same
benefits men’s networks have traditionally provided. These include
serving as conduits for information, providing opportunities to establish
108
S C A R I N G T H E B O Y S
strong relationships with peers in related fields, and creating sources of
mutual support.
The third course involves choosing wisely. Women can seek out
firms where a lot of women already do what they want to do. Even in
occupations that are mostly male-dominated, some firms will have more
women performing those functions than others. Research has shown
that a “lifting of sanctions” begins to occur when the percentage of
women in a particular environment reaches about 15 percent; when 35
to 40 percent of the people in a given environment are women, the
range of behaviors allowed to women widens considerably and the envi-
also choose firms with an organizational culture that supports female
advancement, discourages stereotyping, and maintains an open and
well-structured system for evaluating people.
A well-structured evaluation system is particularly key, and several
aspects of how a firm evaluates its people can make a big difference for
women. First, women fare better when an evaluation process is more
structured, includes clearly understood benchmarks, and is less open
to subjective judgments.85 A situation in which everyone at a particular
level, in a particular group, or performing a particular function must
meet similar performance benchmarks can work very well for women,
for example. Second, women do better and suffer less harm from nega-
tive stereotypes about their competence when they are evaluated for
their individual work products rather than for their contributions to the
work of a team. When a team performs well or achieves a high level of
productivity, evaluators can attribute the team’s good performance to
any one of the team members—and a woman on the team is least likely
to be seen as responsible for the group’s success.86
Choosing wisely also involves feeling entitled to “shop” for a job by
doing plenty of research before you decide where to apply—and
then asking questions during the application and interview process. In
a “Careers” column in Fortune, Matthew Boyle offers this advice: “The
first step, often overlooked, is to find out what suits you. . . . Then it’s
time to find out who offers that specific environment.” Once you’ve
done this much legwork and you’re considering a particu
lar company,
Boyle says “ask how you’ll be evaluated.” He quotes Thomas Tierney,
former CEO of Bain & Co., who said “It’s amazing how many people
don’t ask that. . . . You’re going to sign up for a game and not know
how the score is kept?”87
109
C H A P T E R 4
Transforming the Context
We don’t mean to suggest that only women need to change. As a society,
as managers and coworkers and clients and friends, we all need to ex-
amine our responses to women when they behave in ways more typi-
cally thought of as “masculine.” Managers, in particular, need to recog-
nize that stereotypes can influence how they evaluate people without
their knowing it. They need to take strong steps to prevent this from
happening when women are performing jobs that have traditionally
been performed by men or when the proportion of women doing a
particular job is very small. They need to establish transparent evalua-
tion processes and criteria that minimize the impact of subjective re-
sponses in performance evaluations. By teaching themselves to react
differently to women who assert themselves, and consistently applying
fixed and well-known standards to the work of everyone they supervise,
male or female, managers will free women to promote their own inter-
ests without censure or blame. Doing so will help them retain talented
employees in whom their firms have invested substantial resources. But
they shouldn’t do it just because it’s good business. As a result of the
courage and persistence of one woman, it’s also now the law.
In 1982, Ann Hopkins was the only woman out of 88 people being
considered for partner at the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. Hop-
kins had brought in $25 million in business and billed more hours that
year than any of the 87 men, yet she was rejected for partner. “Her style
was assertive, task-oriented, and instrumental,” writes Virginia Valian.
“She had all the qualities that gender schemas dictate successful men
should have. Her problem was that she wasn’t a man.”88 Hopkins sued,
pressed her case all the way to the Supreme Court, and won each time.
Instrumental in the case was the testimony of Susan Fiske, a research
psychologist and expert on how stereotypes can influence people’s
judgment. Relying on Fiske’s testimony and on an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief filed by the American Psychological Association, the