How Women Decide: A Book Review

by

Therese Huston has written an important new book: How Women Decide: What’s True, What’s Not and What Strategies Spark the Best Choices. The book combines her own research with a comprehensive review of literature on gender differences in decision making. Some of her findings disprove stereotypes about gender differences, while others confirm and explain differences in decision making between women and men. To address these differences, Huston offers decision-making strategies for women. She notes, “Books with advice on decision making for men can be terrible for women. . . . Women need their own playbook.” This is the best playbook on decision making for women I have seen. Here are some of the findings and strategies that stood out for me.

Some Challenges for Women

Huston notes these and other challenges that women face as decision makers in organizations:
  • Women face underlying sexist assumptions that they can’t be trusted to make big decisions. A man only has to worry about making a judgment when making a big decision, while a woman has to worry about making the judgment and being judged because her judgment will be questioned.
  • If a man makes one pivotal decision for his organization, it will carry him a long time. Williams and Dempsey note that women, on the other hand, experience the “prove it again bias” as their good decisions are considered to be a fluke.
  • Women’s decision making is also impacted by something Huston calls “stereotype threat,” or the fear of living up to negative expectations that others have of your group. This fear can create distraction and anxiety for women that can result in hesitation and underperformance. I experienced stereotype threat as a young woman when my high school guidance counselor told me, “Girls are not good in math.” I became terrified of math and avoided it throughout college, thereby limiting my career options in significant ways. I later discovered that I am actually quite good in math, but my anxiety and hesitation from this stereotype threat limited my options. Women may avoid leadership positions and fear decision making for similar reasons.

Some Ways Women and Men are Equal as Decision Makers

Huston debunks a number of myths and stereotypes about men’s and women’s decision-making abilities:
  • Although many people believe that men are more decisive than women, scientists find that men and women struggle with their options equally.
  • Stereotypes suggest that women make decisions intuitively while men make decisions analytically. There is, in fact, no such term as “men’s intuition.” However, Huston reports that men get gut feelings about decisions as often as women, and women are as analytical—perhaps more so—than men in decision making because they know their decisions will be questioned and their case must be solid.
  • Men can read emotions and body language—both important sources of data for decision making—as well as women, but they don’t feel as motivated do so. Women are more motivated to pay attention to nonverbal cues as a self-protection skill because they have less power.

Differences in Risk Taking

Although men and women are equally skilled decision makers, significant differences exist between women and men in making risky decisions. Huston reports:
  • Risk taking is a skill, not a personality trait, and boys get more encouragement to practice this skill than do girls.
  • Several studies show that men overestimate their knowledge and abilities while women underestimate theirs. Overconfidence has been shown to be a major obstacle to smart decisions. Women’s more accurate self-assessment means fewer errors in judgment.
  • Neuroscience has uncovered evidence that the spike in cortisol levels produced by stress has the opposite effect on men’s and women’s approaches to risky decisions. The most stressed-out men pursue options that have big costs and a small chance of big benefits, while the most stressed-out women go for the smaller, more guaranteed success.

Effective Decision-Making Strategies for Women

Huston offers practical strategies for women at the end of each chapter. Here are some that I found particularly thought-provoking and useful:
  • Use your intuition, an important source of data, as a starting point in your decision-making process—but only trust it up to a point. Then hunt down the data to ground your decision before you make it. Don’t rely on intuition alone.
  • When you are talking about your successes in a job interview, draw attention to the successful risks you have taken. This will help counteract the stereotype that women are not decisive and do not take risks.
  • Keep your confidence dialed down when making a decision to ensure it is grounded and smart. Then dial your confidence up when you need to sell your decisions to others.
Women receive a lot of mixed messages and are subject to many confusing double binds as leaders and decision makers. Huston offers an important playbook for how women can navigate these minefields and leverage their strengths. Reading this book will open your eyes and give you practical strategies for overcoming the challenges of making decisions as a woman. Let me know what you think.   The image in this post is in the public domain courtesy of Helpsg.  ]]>

Myths about Women’s Relationships

by

One of the most enduring myths about women is that women are mean to each other and undermine each other at work because of the Queen Bee Syndrome. Some women do have stories of sabotage by another woman at work. My research, published in my book, New Rules for Women: Revolutionizing the Way Women Work Together, found examples of this type of behavior between women but also identified ways that organizational systems set women up against each other. In fact, this behavior between women is no different than the same behavior reported by all marginalized groups. Token representation sets marginalized group members against each other to compete for limited opportunities in environments controlled by dominant group members. This behavior is not unique to women. The participants in my study also talked about the importance in their lives of women’s support. Several new studies, reported by Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant in the New York Times, confirm that strong evidence exists to knock a hole in “the myth of the catty woman.” Here are some of the findings from those studies:

  • When researchers studied the top management of the Standard and Poor’s 1,500 companies over twenty years, they found that when the chief executive was male, it was unlikely that more than one woman would make it onto the senior management team. When the chief executive was a woman, more women joined senior management.
  • On corporate boards, women are less likely than men to be mentored or promoted to senior management positions—unless there is already a woman on the board.
  • In Latin American politics between 1999 and 2013, female presidents appointed 24 percent more female ministers to their cabinets.
  • When women negotiate on behalf of other women, they are able to boost their own salaries, too.
Yes, there are still some Queen Bees in organizations, particularly in male-dominated ones where opportunities for women’s advancement are limited. And men can also be quite mean to each other, though their behavior is often viewed as healthy competition and has no name equivalent to Queen Bee. Let’s look for ways to lift each other up and move past negative stereotypes about women. For the most part, these stereotypes are not true and definitely not the whole story. Here are some ways that women can continue to support each other:
  • By mentoring each other and being role models for supporting women.
  • By celebrating each other’s accomplishments, especially when they are overlooked.
  • By helping each other get heard in meetings.
  • By talking with each other and agreeing to compete and have each other’s backs. Yes—we really can do this!
If you have experiences supporting or being supported by women in your workplace, please share them in the comments section.     The image in this post is in the public domain courtesy of Startup Stock Photos.]]>

A Gender Gap for Female Attorneys: Where Are the Women?

by

Even though women make up close to half of all law school graduates, Shirley Leung of the Boston Globe notes that a gaping gender gap exists in the legal profession. She speculates that it could be the long hours required by large firms, the male-dominated culture of those firms, or outright discrimination, but “women drop out.” Leung reports that

  • Women comprise only 36 percent of the profession, according to the American Bar Association
  • Only 18 percent of women are equity partners at the largest firms
  • Women earn only 80 percent of the typical equity partner, according to a study done by the National Association of Women Lawyers
  • In high profile cases, women may be on the litigation teams, but they are relegated to roles behind the scenes and do not have speaking parts
Why does this last point matter? Leung cites Kim Dougherty, past president of the Women’s Bar Association, as noting, “getting more women to play big roles in courtrooms increases their chances for advancement, better pay, and opportunities to seek judgeships, which require lead trial experience.” Both Dougherty and Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge, suggest that judges can impact change from the bench by asking for more gender diversity among attorneys in courtroom proceedings. By setting such policy for their courtrooms, they can open opportunities for women to litigate in lead roles. The judge presiding over the Sumner Redstone case in Boston is a recent example of a judge who “walks his talk.” When only male attorneys spoke for both sides in the opening arguments of the trial, Judge George Phelan commented on the lack of female attorneys. His comment may result in participation by more women lawyers as this case moves forward, but Gertner notes that this will only matter if the women have real speaking roles rather than just cameo appearances. We need more judges like Phelan and Gertner who create fairness and opportunity for all lawyers in their courtrooms.   The image in this post is in the public domain courtesy of Activedia.]]>

Why We Need More Women on Corporate Boards

by

The wealth gap in the United States is outrageous, as highlighted previously by the Occupy Wall Street movement and progressive Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The pay of corporate CEOs continues to skyrocket, even when their companies underperform, while millions of citizens struggle to earn a living wage. The earnings of the middle class have been in steep decline, but corporate boards approve ever-increasing compensation packages for CEOs. I always assumed that if more women were on corporate boards, there would be a reversal of this trend—but new research shows the opposite. While past studies show that having more women on boards is good for company performance, Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times reports that according to a new study, “companies with greater gender diversity on their boards paid their chief executives about 15 percent more than the compensation dispensed by companies with less diverse boards.” Why might this surprising trend be happening? Morgenson notes that while no one knows for sure, some experts point to the following possible causes:

  • Relatively few women (roughly 20 percent) serve on corporate boards, and those who do may feel pressured to go along with the “vote yes” culture of most boards in order to keep their seats.
  • The board compensation committee determines CEO pay, and women do not commonly serve on these committees, much less as chairwomen. Morgenson notes that last year, only two out of ten committee chairs of the most diverse boards were women.
  • The same women directors often hold multiple positions. Morgenson notes that nearly one-quarter of women directors at S&P 500 companies held multiple board seats compared to 19 percent of men. This group of women might be sought after because they do not rock the boat.
Many qualified women with C-Suite experience have not been tapped to serve on corporate boards. It seems likely that a larger proportion of women on boards will create space for more women to join together to resist the “culture of yes” and help bring CEO pay back to more reasonable levels. Token representation makes it difficult to speak out. Let’s keep pushing for more women on boards.   The image in this post is in the public domain courtesy of Benjamin Child.    ]]>

Tips for Retaining Women in Architecture

by

The field of architecture is hemorrhaging talent. While women make up 50 percent of many graduate architecture programs, they drop out of the profession in large numbers once they start working. What is going on? A recent study on diversity by the American Institute of Architects, reported by Robin Pogrebin in the New York Times, found a lack of gender equity in the profession that contributes to women leaving:

  • Women and minorities are less likely to be promoted to senior positions. When younger women do not have role models in senior roles, they may be discouraged and conclude that the opportunities for women are limited.
  • The percentage of female architects in the United States has been stagnant for more than ten years at about 25.7 percent.
  • African American women make up less than 0.3 percent of the industry. These low numbers make it especially challenging for African American women to be accepted or taken seriously in the profession when there are so few representatives of this demographic.
  • Female architects are considered intruders by contractors and construction workers at construction sites. Their presence is often resented or not respected.
  • Younger women with architecture degrees are often pushed into drafting and interior design roles, while men design the building structures and are given more face time with clients.
  • Many architectural firms lack support for work-life balance, making it necessary for many women to choose between becoming a parent and staying at the firm and in the profession.
 

Tips for Retaining Female Architects

According to Pogrebin, the American Institute of Architects study suggests that the following behavioral and policy changes can help create environments where female architects can be successful and will want to stay:
  • Treat female architects as professionals. For example, do not call a woman a “girl,” especially in client meetings. (Yes, this really happens.)
  • Make sure that the women on a project are introduced and not made invisible.
  • Don’t comment on women’s bodies or clothes more than you would on men’s.
  • Don’t apologize for swearing in front of female architects. They can probably take it or will tell you if they are offended, just as men would do.
  • Don’t interrupt or talk over women.
  • Promote women into positions of power and influence.
  • Provide overtime pay, flexible schedules and paid parental leave to support family life for both women and men.
These suggestions for behavior and policy changes will go a long way toward changing the culture of the architecture profession to one where women will feel they can utilize their talents without having to fight against unconscious and conscious bias that creates an unequal playing field.   The image in this post is in the public domain courtesy of Daniel Lozano Valdéz.]]>

Why Celebrate Women’s Friendships?

by

We need a way to celebrate the important role that friendships with women play in most of our lives. I remember feeling quite satisfied with my life as a single woman well into my forties because of the richness of my network of women friends. I had good friends at work with whom I went to concerts and on vacations. I had other women friends with whom I shared problems and companionable activities such as movie going, and I had women friends I had known since high school and college with whom I had shared significant life passages over many years and miles. I remember saying at that time that while I would like to have a long-term intimate relationship someday, if that never happened, that was okay, too. My relationship needs felt largely fulfilled by my friendships with women. When I did meet my soul mate at the age of forty-five, and began sharing daily life with him, he and I both understood that my women friends would continue to play an important role in my life. Yet it feels to me like we are missing a way to celebrate the importance of women’s friendships for meeting needs beyond those fulfilled by both same-sex and heterosexual marriage (or their equivalent). In an interesting new book entitled The Social Sex: A History of Female Friendship, the author, Marilyn Yalom, traces the history of female friendships and notes that “almost all documents on friendship during the first two thousand years of Western history—from 600 BCE to 1600 CE—pertain to men.” She notes that ancient Greek philosophers “did not consider women worthy of attention since they were noncitizens, nonsoldiers, and nonparticipants in the public realm.” As late as the mid-nineteenth century, British journalists published articles suggesting that women were too unstable to be suited for, or capable of, friendships “within their own sex.” Could it be that women’s friendships are still largely uncelebrated because of undercurrents from ancient stereotypes about women? Rebecca Traister, writing in the New York Times about the importance of female friendships, contradicts the ancient stereotypes and states that “female friendships have been the bedrock of women’s lives for as long as there have been women.” She notes that a network of women friends can provide support and understanding about shared life experiences as women that a male partner cannot provide. In fact, because no one person can ever meet all of our needs, women married to women also need to maintain their network of women friends to keep themselves and their relationships balanced and healthy. In my book, New Rules for Women: Revolutionizing the Way Women Work Together, I report findings from my research on women’s relationships in the workplace. My research participants describe the importance of having supportive relationships with other women at work in order to keep their balance and grounding in the face of unconscious bias, subtle gender discrimination, and the challenges of balancing work and family life. I agree with Traister when she says that we don’t have ceremonies or rituals to acknowledge the importance of the role women friends play in our lives —and we need them.  Do you have any suggestions? Please share your thoughts and experiences about celebrating women’s friendships in the comments section, and let’s see if there’s an idea that might be ready to take flight for the rest of us!     The image in this post is in the public domain courtesy of Jacquelynne Kosmicki.]]>

Hillary Clinton and the Goldilocks Syndrome

by

Why is it that when Hillary Clinton stepped down from being secretary of state in 2013, after four years in office, she was the most popular politician in the country? Her approval rating then stood at 69 percent. Yet while campaigning for president in 2016, two-thirds of the voting population said they did not trust her, though according to Nicolas Kristof of the New York Times, this distrust is not deserved. Sady Doyle, writing for Quartz, suggests that “public opinion of Clinton has followed a fixed pattern throughout her career. Her public approval plummets whenever she applies for a new position. Then it soars when she gets the job.” This pattern played out for Clinton when she ran for Senate and got that job, and the pattern is not specific to Clinton. Elizabeth Warren experienced the same dynamic when she ran for Senate in Massachusetts—women reported being “turned off by Warren’s know-it-all style,” but she became extremely popular once she made it to the Senate. Let’s be clear—this is a pattern that many women experience when they campaign for powerful positions, not only in politics but in organizations when women apply for promotions. Doyle states that what we are seeing is misogyny— a continual prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power. She cites a Harvard study that found that “power-seeking men are seen as strong and competent. Power-seeking women are greeted by both sexes with ‘moral outrage.’” Clinton and other successful women are caught in double binds that are challenging and costly for them when they seek promotions.  

Double Binds for Successful Women

What are double binds? They are catch-22 situations that women often face in public and organizational life. In her book Executive Presence, Sylvia Ann Hewlett cites Carolyn Buck Lee as describing double binds as the Goldilocks syndrome: “You’re too this, you’re too that, and you always will be because what’s behind it is hidden bias.” My women clients and other women in the news have been told they smile too much or too little to be leaders or they talk too little or too much to make partner. Hillary Clinton, and other women leaders face a number of pernicious double binds when they apply for a promotion, which according to Hewlett include the following:
  • Walking a tightrope between being effective and being likable. Hewlett notes that successful women, unlike successful men, suffer social rejection and personal derogation when they are successful or dare to put themselves forward as being qualified for a promotion.
  • Walking a tightrope between being too feminine and not feminine enough. Women seeking promotions are often told they are either too female to be taken seriously or too aggressive to be appropriately feminine.
What’s to be done? We can work at recognizing our unconscious negative biases about women and power. What else do you think we can do to ensure that talented women are encouraged to pursue leadership positions? Let me know in the comments section.   The image in this post is courtesy of Tim Gouw (CC0 license)]]>

Five Things Leaders Can Do to Help Women Get Their Voices Heard

by

I recently facilitated a leadership development workshop with a mixed-gender, mixed-race group and noticed a familiar pattern—the men, regardless of race, took up much more airtime than the women, and the women, especially the women of color, hardly said anything at all. I felt a familiar sense of annoyance rise up in me as one man after another seemed to go on and on whenever he had the floor, and I had to call on individual women and draw them out to get their voices and ideas into the room. Yes, I know that not all men have the “on and on” disease, and that some women speak a lot in groups, but this difference in gendered communication patterns has been well documented in social science research. Julia Baird recently wrote about this dynamic, which she calls “manologues,” in the New York Times and put words to my experience in the following statement: “Men take, and are allocated, more time to talk in almost every professional setting. Women self-censor, edit (and) apologize for speaking. Men expound.” In her article, Baird summarized the findings from a number of studies that support her statements as follows:

  • A study from Harvard found that the larger the group, the more likely men are to speak.
  • A Brigham Young and Princeton University study found that when women are outnumbered, they speak for between a quarter and a third less time than men.
  • Men talk more directly; women hedge and turn statements into questions.
  • Women are interrupted more by both men and women.
  • The more powerful men become, the more they speak; the same is not true for women. For good reason, women worry about a backlash that can occur when women speak more. A study from Yale found that both male and female listeners were quick to think that women who speak more are talking too much or too aggressively. Men are rewarded for speaking more, and women are punished.
  • A New Zealand study found that in formal contexts, men talk more often and for longer than women. Women use words to explore; men, to explain.
  • A Harvard study found that female students speak more when a female instructor is in the classroom.
Baird concludes that “including women is not the same as hearing women.”  

What Leaders Can Do to Ensure That Women Are Heard

Leaders can take concrete steps to ensure that women’s voices are heard in professional and workplace settings:
  1. Form gender-balanced panels in professional conference settings and encourage moderators to equalize the airtime allotted to women and men.
  2. Institute “no interruptions” rules in meetings.
  3. Ensure equal participation in meetings. Keep track of who is and is not speaking and call on people who are speaking less.
  4. Increase the number of women in leadership and on teams.
  5. Be an ally—draw attention to women’s contributions, and make space for them.
What has worked for you?   The image in this post is in the public domain, courtesy of Hans.  ]]>

The Female Pilots of World War II: Forgotten and Betrayed

by

When Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941 and the United States suddenly found itself at war, male pilots were in short supply. Sarah Byrn Rickman writes that initially, twenty-eight experienced civilian female pilots stepped in to become the first members of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) “who flew wingtip to wingtip with their male counterparts and were just as vital in the war effort” as they flew everything from small aircraft to fighter planes. While they did not fly combat missions overseas, these WASPs flew almost every aircraft in the army’s arsenal for transport, training, testing, and other purposes. Rickman notes that “eventually 1,074 more women were trained to fly and relieve male pilots who were sent to combat.” Rickman states that by the end of the war, thirty-eight WASPs had died flying for their country. The military never officially recognized the WASPs’ service during the war and took no responsibility for the transport of their bodies or funeral costs when the WASPs lost their lives while flying. As soon as the war was over, when their champion, Army Air Force Commanding General Henry Arnold, sought to have the WASPs designated as members of the United States military, Congress refused because of complaints from disgruntled male pilots who feared that women would take their jobs. The WASPs were disbanded at the end of 1944 with no recognition. The impact of this shameful decision was that these women did not receive the following:

  • medical care or benefits
  • insurance benefits
  • symbols of recognition for the families of WASPs who died while serving their country
  • burial subsidies
  • flags on their coffins
  • access to burial in the national military cemeteries
The struggle for recognition continues:
  • In 1977, WASPs finally earned military status.
  • In 2002, the Army granted WASPs military funeral honors.
  • In March 2015, the military rescinded the right to military funeral honors, including the right to be buried in our national cemeteries.
Shame on the army and the US Congress for not recognizing the service and sacrifices of these brave women.   The image used in this post is in the public domain and can be found at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Group_of_Women_Airforce_Service_ Pilots_and_B-17_Flying_Fortress.jpg.  ]]>

3 Reasons Why There are Fewer Women in STEM Professions: New Research Brings Hidden Barriers to Light

by

The fact that there are so few women in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) professions has been a mystery for a long time. A. Hope Jahren of the New York Times writes that according to the most recent statistics released by UNESCO, “women’s enrollment in graduate education in the United States has been greater than men’s for each of the last 30 years.” But every year, female students drop out of STEM graduate programs in large numbers and are denied tenure at high rates when they do complete their studies and move into faculty positions. Women are also poorly represented as senior STEM leaders. Jahren notes that women do not drop out of graduate programs because of performance—there is no difference in GPAs between women who drop out and those who stay in. And women are not denied tenure because of a failure to publish. So what is going on? Several new important studies reveal reasons why women struggle to be successful in the sciences and point the way to changes that will make it possible for them to succeed in the STEM professions.

Reason 1: Research Funding Is Significantly Lower for Female Scientists

Priyanka Dayal McCluskey of the Boston Globe reports that at big biomedical research institutions, including hospitals, universities, and other research institutions in New England, male scientists beginning their careers receive more than twice as much funding to support their work as female colleagues. A study conducted by a Boston nonprofit group, Health Resources in Action, found that male scientists beginning their careers as faculty researchers receive median start-up funding of $889,000 to establish their research labs compared to $350,000 for women. These funding packages are negotiated confidentially between researchers and department heads, and with no transparency, this pattern of gender bias had not previously been visible. Smaller start-up budgets make it harder for women to publish research and attract new grants, which impacts tenure and promotions for them.

Reason 2: Women Do Not Receive Tenure Credit for Their Publications

Justin Wolfers of the New York Times reports on research by Heather Sarsons at Harvard that compiled data on the publication records of young economists recruited by top universities over the past 40 years. Wolfers notes that the career path for economists is largely organized around tenure, which is based on “publish or perish” criteria. The study indicates that while women in the field publish as much as men, they are twice as likely to perish or be denied tenure. Sarsons’s research found that the only women who enjoyed the same rate of tenure success as men were those who published as solo authors. And here is where the study findings get interesting. Consider that most scholarly papers are coauthored and that economics is a male-dominated field, and note these findings:
  • When a woman and a man coauthor a paper, the man receives full credit toward tenure and his female coauthor receives no credit. It is assumed that only he deserves the credit.
  • Only when a woman publishes a paper alone or coauthors with another woman is she given full credit toward tenure.
The study found strong statistical differences and suggests this bias may account for female economists being twice as likely to be denied tenure.

Reason 3: Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is pervasive and underreported, creating an intimidating environment for young female scientists. Jahren, a female professor of geobiology, suggests that sexual harassment accounts for much of the huge dropout rate for young females in the sciences—along with a sense of isolation. Only recently has the lack of attention and responsiveness to claims of sexual harassment in several large academic institutions become public. Jahren notes: “From grad-school admission on up through tenure, every promotion can hinge on a recommendation letter’s one key passage of praise, offered—or withheld—by the most recent academic adviser. Given the gender breakdown of senior scientists, most often that adviser is a man.” Jahren suggests that often, in the face of harassment from a powerful male mentor, the only choice a student feels she has is to leave the profession to get away from him. Women feel that if they reject their mentor’s advances, they will not get a good recommendation and their career in science is over. What are the lessons learned from these new studies? We need transparency and accountability to interrupt and change these systemic patterns of bias. As long as they are hidden, and there are no consequences for unfair treatment, nothing will change.     Photo credit: Laboratory Science – biomedical by Bill Dickinson, on Flickr]]>