First, as we discussed earlier, other people’s beliefs and stereotypes
color the ways in which they see the world. So people around these
capable and confident women are going to interpret, process, and re-
spond to their actions through the lens of their stereotypes about
women—often without realizing that they’re doing so. As a result, the
work these women do may be rated as inferior to comparable work by
men even when the actual work product is identical. (We explore this
phenomenon in the following chapter.) Their work may be “devalued
simply because they are women,” the social psychologist Madeline Heil-
man has shown.45
78
N I C E G I R L S D O N ’ T A S K
Second, it has been demonstrated that expectations and stereotypes
can subconsciously influence a person’s behavior even when those ste-
reotypes are not embraced or internalized.46 An area of research termed
“stereotype threat” pioneered by the psychologist Claude Steele and his
colleagues has shown that merely “activating” a stereotype by asking
about it—that is, eliciting the information that someone belongs to a
particular group—can have a significant impact on that person’s behav-
ior.47 For example, asking about a student’s race before a test of verbal
ability can cause African-American students to perform significantly
worse—25 percent worse—than they perform when they are not asked
about their race beforehand.48 On the other hand, asking an Asian stu-
dent about his or her race before a mathematics test can actually im-
prove that student’s performance, because Asians are thought to have
superior skill at mathematics. Similar results have been found in re-
search that examined gender stereotypes.49 In a study at the University
of Michigan, undergraduate students were given a difficult mathematics
test. One group of participants was told that there were usually no gen-
der differences in performance on the test they were about to take, and
among this group men and women performed equally well on the test.
Another group was told that the test usually produced gender differ-
ences in performance (but they weren’t told whether men or women
tended to perform better). Among this group, presumably because men
are believed to have superior math skills, women’s scores dropped
sharply—by more than half—while men’s scores increased by about 33
percent.50
Scholars do not yet fully understand the psychological processes that
influence performance in these situations, but most researchers suspect
that “activating” the stereotype either evokes a surge of positive self-
esteem that enhances performance, if the stereotype is a flattering one,
or rouses concern about confirming the stereotype (concern that may
not even be conscious), if the stereotype is an unflattering one. This
concern, they suspect, increases a person’s performance anxiety while
also adding to the number of things he or she is thinking about—leaving
less room in his or her head for doing other things, such as concentrat-
ing on complex math calculations. The result is a degradation of perfor-
mance.51
Here’s an example from Sara’s own experience. When she was 28,
Sara left a job as a publishing executive and decided to take some time
to figure out what she wanted to do next. While she considered her
options, she took a job in a bookstore to help pay her bills. It was a
79
C H A P T E R 3
small store, and most of the time she worked closely with the owner.
This man had gone to business school and prided himself on the speed
with which he could do calculations in his head. He also made no bones
about the fact that he believed women were no good at math. The store
was equipped with an old cash register that frequently forced Sara to
do simple calculations in her head to save time. Sara had also always
been good at math, and she considered herself fast and accurate at mak-
ing calculations in her head. In her previous job she had been responsi-
ble for the details of complex contracts, and she always figured out the
the bookstore owner was standing by and she had to complete calcula-
tions in her head, she made mistakes or felt sufficiently unsure of her
answers that she would repeat the calculations on paper to convince
herself that she was being accurate. Although she knew this made no
sense and felt exasperated with herself for what she perceived as a weak-
ness, she was unable to combat the power of the owner’s conviction
that she could not do these relatively simple mental tasks.
This area of research suggests that stereotypes with negative connota-
tions about the abilities of women may influence a woman’s behavior
even if she repudiates the stereotype or feels herself to be immune from
its damage. While the studies described above found performance defi-
cits when a person’s race or gender was explicitly identified, stereotype
threat can also occur in a multitude of situations that simply make a
person’s gender noticeable. For example, a recent study investigated
how “tokenism” can affect performance.52 The researchers in this study
asked students to take a test of mathematical ability (from the GRE) in
groups of three. Some of the groups were composed of three women;
others were made up of one woman and two men. In comparing the
results of the all-female groups with those that included two men, the
researchers found that women in the “token” groups (women who
took the test with two men) performed 21 percent worse than the
women in the all-female groups. They concluded that when a person’s
“token” status becomes salient—when the makeup of a group high-
lights an individual’s difference from the dominant group—this creates
a self-consciousness in the “token” individual that can interfere with
performance.
Linda had an experience that illustrates this clearly. One year, she
was asked to serve as interim dean of her graduate school while a full-
scale search was launched to fill the position permanently. Shortly after
she took up the post, Linda found herself at an important meeting with
80
N I C E G I R L S D O N ’ T A S K
the university president, the provost, and the rest of the deans, all of
whom were men. Although Linda had never observed any behavior
to suggest that her colleagues were sexist and they had always been
enthusiastic about her work, Linda felt acutely conscious of the fact that
everyone else in the room was male. At this meeting, Linda was sched-
uled to present a strategic plan she’d developed for the school. She
remembers thinking that she really needed to do a great job to show
that women can be successful leaders and deserve to be “at the table.”
Yet she felt herself growing uncharacteristically nervous. By the time it
was her turn to speak, she was petrified. Afterward, she acknowledged
to her own chagrin that self-consciousne
ss about her gender had inter-
fered with her performance.
This suggests that even if a woman believes that society’s gender-role
requirements are inappropriate and even offensive, the mere knowledge
that these beliefs are held by others may be enough to influence her
behavior. If she is unaware that this is occurring, she may take no action
to counteract it. And even if she does realize what’s happening, like both
Sara and Linda, she may have trouble fighting it. By causing women to
perform less well under pressure, stereotype threat helps perpetuate
negative generalizations about women’s capacities and helps reinforce
the very ideas that have caused them. And by making women more
uncomfortable about demonstrating their abilities, damaging their self-
confidence at crucial moments, and seemingly confirming the expecta-
tions they have been resisting, it may become an important force in
pushing women’s behavior into line with prevailing gender-role ideas.
In this way the stereotype that women make bad negotiators, for exam-
ple, may hamper women from discovering how good they can be.
Prospects for Change
Change can begin at home, with parents examining their reflexive re-
sponses to their female and male children and the lessons they teach
their children through their behavior. It can begin in schools, with
teachers making sure that they don’t send unintended messages to girls
and boys about what is expected of them—and what is not permitted.
It can begin with individual managers examining the beliefs they hold
about women and men and trying to be more self-conscious about how
they interpret the behavior of their female employees, evaluate their
work, and make decisions regarding compensation and advancement.
81
C H A P T E R 3
Deloitte and Touche, the firm we described in the introduction, dem-
onstrated that large-scale change is also possible—and Deloitte and
Touche’s success has already inspired other companies to follow suit.
According to Sue Molina, a Deloitte and Touche tax partner and the
national director of the Initiative for the Retention and Advancement of
Women, other companies contact the firm regularly for information
about the initiative. In addition, D&T’s “human capital” group is begin-
ning to consult for other companies seeking to improve the status of
women in their organizations.53
Change is underway elsewhere as well. Accenture, a management
consulting and technology services company, launched a “Great Place
to Work for Women” initiative in the United States in 1994 (and ex-
panded to the rest of the world in 2000), which seeks to “attract, retain
and advance women by recognizing, fostering and maximizing their
performance.” To achieve these goals, the program “is customized lo-
cally to offer information, networking opportunities, policies and pro-
grams specific to each of the countries in which the program has been
implemented. The company uses a variety of innovative processes such
as geographic scorecards, global surveys and performance appraisals to
ensure that company leadership remains accountable for the initiative’s
success.”54
Accenture’s program aims for more thorough change at all levels of
the organization by making the company’s leadership accountable for
achieving success, which research has shown to be especially effective
in bringing about real change.55 Catalyst president Sheila Wellington
singled out the Accenture program for praise because of “the scope of
the initiative combined with the ease by which it can be replicated
worldwide” and called it “a truly innovative effort.”56 (Catalyst is a non-
profit research and advisory organization concerned with the profes-
sional advancement of women.)
Ernst and Young, an international accounting and professional ser-
vices firm with 110,000 employees worldwide, launched a series of
“women’s development initiatives” in 1997 that increased women in
executive management positions from 0 to 13 percent by 2002. During
the same five years, the percentage of women promoted to partner at
Ernst and Young doubled. The firm’s commitment to making its corpo-
rate culture more hospitable to women earned it a spot on Working
Mother magazine’s “100 Best Companies for Working Mothers” list for
five consecutive years, landed it on Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Com-82
N I C E G I R L S D O N ’ T A S K
panies to Work For” list, and made it one of three firms in 2003 to win
Catalyst’s award for “companies and firms with outstanding initiatives
that result in women’s career development and advancement.” And, as
at Deloitte and Touche, improving the firm’s culture for women made
a difference for men as well. Approximately 1,000 Ernst and Young
employees had babies in 2002, and 949 of them took advantage of the
firm’s parental leave benefit—almost half of them men. In addition,
both men and women have made use of the firm’s flex-time options,
including partners, principals, and directors, without suffering any
slow-down in their professional progress.
The huge increase in firms applying to be considered for Working
Mother’s “100 Best Companies for Working Mothers” award since the
program began in 1986 shows that American companies have begun to
recognize the value of promoting women’s professional progress. Ac-
cording to Amy DiTillio, a senior associate editor at Working Mother, as more firms apply, winning requires truly meaningful change, continu-ally “raising the bar.”
Most of the initiatives undertaken by these companies involve so-
called “work/life” benefits, such as child-care services, flexible work ar-
rangements, and elder-care and adoption assistance programs. Mother-
friendly policies make it possible for these companies to retain talented
employees in whom they’ve invested substantial resources. Steve
Sanger, the CEO of General Mills, who won Working Mother’s “2003
Chief Executive of the Year” award for demonstrating extraordinary
commitment to creating a family-friendly workplace, explained why
these policies make good business sense: “You know what’s really ex-
pensive? Turnover. If we’ve invested in recruiting and developing good
people, then we want them to stay.”57
In addition to their positive impact on the bottom line, family-
friendly initiatives can remove barriers to women’s advancement by
transforming women’s “communal” impulse to take care of their fami-
lies into a gender norm for both sexes. In response, men in these compa-
nies are flocking to take advantage of these programs.
Unfortunately, however, most of these companies have not gone as
far as Deloitte and Touche in looking at the entrenched attitudes, un-
thinking responses, and unseen roadblocks to women’s advancement
that lurk throughout our culture. These companies—and many more—
still need to remove many of the barriers that can prevent women from
asserting themselves, asking for what they wan
t, and getting what they
83
C H A P T E R 3
deserve. Change of this sort is not only possible, it’s necessary—because
another reason women don’t resist the constraints of gender roles and
stereotypes involves the consequences for violating those expectations.
As our culture currently functions, women sometimes find themselves
punished for behaving in ways that go against prevailing gender norms.
Promoting their own interests by asking for what they want may be one
of those ways. We explore this last reason in depth in the next chapter.
84
4
Scaring the Boys
In the late 1990s, Jean Hollands, founder of an executive coaching
firm in California called the Growth and Leadership Center, recog-
nized a new need in her field: Someone had to teach tough, capable
women in business to tone down their act. Women with enormous
passion for their jobs and little tolerance for incompetence were intim-
idating their subordinates, coworkers, and even their bosses. As a result,
these women’s careers were stalling. A “tough” personal style, often an
advantage for men in business, had emerged as a liability for ambitious
women.1
In response, Jean Hollands started the “Bully Broads” program, which
charges around $18,000 (almost always paid by a woman’s employer)
to “modify” or “reform” tough women by teaching them how to be
“nicer.”2 Does she acknowledge that there’s a double standard? Abso-
lutely. “Many of the things these women do would not be as inappropri-
ate in a man,” Ms. Hollands says.3 Her son-in-law, Ron Steck, a vice
president of the Growth and Leadership Center, goes further: “With a
male executive, there’s no expectation to be nice. He has more permis-
sion to be an ass. But when women speak their minds, they’re seen as
harsh.”4 To counteract this impression, Bully Broads teaches these
women to speak more slowly and softly, hesitate or stammer when pre-
senting their ideas, use self-deprecating humor, and even allow them-
selves to cry at meetings. They need to “become ladies first,” Hollands
says; they also need to appear vulnerable and use what she calls “fore-
play”—elaborate apologies and explanations to soften bad news or un-
welcome directives.5