Kathleen Kelley Reardon

In 1995, I published They Don’t Get It, Do They? Closing the Communication Gap Between Women and Men after writing “The Memo Every Woman Keeps in Her Desk” – a Harvard Business Review reprint bestseller. In both cases, the purpose was to explore the role everyday communication plays in advancing or slowing the progress of women at work.

Certainly women realize more than they did then that stretching communication styles and adapting to our surroundings are important to career success. But as keen observers of workplace issues point out, the last two decades have not produced the results expected. In fact, there has been a palpable stall in women’s progress on many fronts, especially in value of work and senior level promotions.

Women are exiting high tech jobs even as programs are promoting their entrance into those fields. Among fund managers, where the presence of women increases organizational success, women are also moving on.  The history behind this was also just published by Big Think.

Below are excerpts from They Don’t Get It, Do They? with explanations regarding why significant problems moving to senior levels still exist for women at work and what can be done to change that.

At the heart of the problems women face is the fact that men and women working together do not speak the same language…. Fundamental differences in the way women and men think as described by Carol Gilligan in her book A Different Voice lead to fundamental differences in the way they communicate job commitment, managerial expertise, leadership, and a host of other promotion-relevant competencies…. We worry about saying that men and women differ. But they do, if not innately, then because of socialization; and the way they communicate these experiences is therefore different as well.

Unfortunately, as Gilligan also wrote, it is difficult to say “different” without saying “better” or “worse.” Men have largely developed the standard measurements of workplace value. When women’s styles do not conform, the natural conclusion is that there is something wrong with women and that they cannot effectively lead.

Most women prefer to believe that men welcome them to the workforce. In fact, when young, in their “cute-and-little phase,” men are often willing to mentor and guide them. So young women naturally wonder, “Why all the fuss?” After all, things appear to be going quite well. That’s where women lose a lot of valuable learning time. When they become candidates for promotions previously taken by men, they’re unprepared for the precipitous decline in collegial support. As UCLA Distinguished Professor of Psychology, Shelley Taylor, shared with me, “The whole process of learning that men aren’t all that comfortable with women at senior levels is very painful for women.”

One option for women was to become more like men. When that didn’t work, women became entrepreneurs or tried to beat men at their own game. They were given labels that were uncomfortable. Some ignored or rejected them and pushed on. Doing so well means altering how you respond to put-downs and constraining categories – changing your communication style so that people think twice about trying to put you in what they consider your place.

“Communication is a complex activity…. When it comes to the big stakes game of senior management, women’s communication strategies must be both sophisticated and variable – less focused on what men want, more focused on what works both professionally and personally.”

Communication patterns between women and men have not adequately adjusted to the increasing presence of women in the workplace. Changing this condition means stepping out of the scripts we’re used to enacting, especially the dysfunctional ones. Being left out of meetings, having ideas stolen, enduring far more interruptions, are just a few of the problems women still find infuriating. The reason why they continue to exist is, in good part, fear of coming on too strong.

“The truth is that a wide range of communication strategies exists between demure and abrasive. Clinging to either end of the range is a recipe for failure. Many women worry that assertive behavior will upset men and lead to disfavor. What they have failed to consider is that they aren’t exactly in favor anyway. Letting others label your interactions, and exclude, interrupt, and devalue you is not better than upsetting a few men now and then.”

To change the overall picture for women in the workplace, it’s critical to change the day-to-day as well. That means taking a good look at how we communicate. The conversation below shows how easy it is to slip into a dysfunctional communication pattern (DCP):

Michael: You sure came on strong in that meeting.

Jessica: I was just trying to make a point.

Michael: Well, you certainly did that.

Jessica: Do you think I overdid it?

Michael: It’s not what I think that counts.

Jessica: Did Al say anything about it?

Michael: He didn’t have to. Did you see his eyes?

Jessica has abdicated control in this conversation. Each of us is at least 75% responsible for what goes on in interactions. If Jessica responds regularly this way, she is allowing other people to limit her communication and to silence her at meetings. Instead, she could change the course of the conversation.

Michael: You sure came on strong in that meeting.

Jessica: Someone had to. It’s an important project.

This reply is short and unexpected. It can be said calmly and/or directly. It conveys that Jessica is confident and that she has a persuasive, legitimate, work-related reason for her actions. She refused to participate in a script and implied label of “pushy” that lowers the value of her contributions. An added advantage: Michael is less likely to slip into that script again.

To the extent that women, in particular, recognize dysfunctional scripts and take steps to intercept them before they do damage, the way they’re perceived at work can become increasingly positive. Work is about getting jobs done. It’s not home. How we’re perceived is shaped by daily conversations. To the extent that women manage them, the likelihood of progress to senior levels is enhanced.

Fear of being labeled is still a significant obstacle for women. The truth is — you’re going to get labeled anyway, so you might as well have some input.

They Don’t Get It, Do They? was released this week on Kindle here for $2.99).

This blog was originally written for Big Think.

Some years back I published a case in the Harvard Business Review, “The Memo Every Woman Keeps in Her Desk.”  It became a reprint bestseller.  A young woman, working for fictitious Vision Software, drafted a memo to send to the CEO about the subtle and not-so-subtle problems leading to senior women exiting the company.  The question posed in the case was whether she should actually send the memo.  Would it be seen as helping her company or would it be political suicide?  Experts weighed in. Gloria Steinem wrote that unless Liz was in imminent danger of homelessness, she should send the memo in order not to act against her own and other women’s best interests and to give her company her best advice.  Other experts, including CEOs, concurred for other reasons that would benefit Liz and/or the company.  Everyone realized the risks involved.  And so it’s not surprising that other senior level executives advised that Liz not send the memo.  They thought the risks were too great.  Among their reasons:  she wasn’t ready, it wasn’t her responsibility, she shouldn’t go it alone, and, in one case, that a memo wasn’t the best way to convey such a message to a CEO.

The memo case, aside from being about gender issues at work, was about courage — when and how it should be applied. Courage at work is not the same as courage involved in fighting a fire or taking a hill in battle.  There’s usually time to think.  That’s what the blog I posted Thursday is about.  So, too, is an article, “Courage as a Skill” that I published in HBR.  In both cases, courage is described as involving calculated risk.  You have to ask yourself a number of questions before taking a path most of your colleagues fear to tread. This doesn’t mean that spontaneous courage shouldn’t occur at work.  But what good is it if the brave among us regularly hurl themselves into the fire of retaliation because they lack a strong foundation upon which to take courageous action?

You can read “Courage as a Skill” for a more thorough discussion of what it takes to make courageous acts succeed.  Among the suggestions are that it’s important to determine your goals — really know why you want to take the risk.  Also important is forming a power network, if possible, before acting.  Crucial, too, is weighing the risks and benefits.  Can you live with the downsides?  Then there is selecting the right time.  Are you acting on emotion of the moment? Is this a detriment?  Finally, contingency plans should be outlined so that no matter how things go, there are viable options.

These questions constitute what I call the courage calculation.  Courage is never without risk or it wouldn’t be courage.  The best you can do is go in with your eyes open ready for whatever comes your way.

It takes courage to confront the political landscape of any group, family or organization — moreso when that landscape is what Pope Francis recently described as “ailing.” Identifying 15 “ailments,” he took a huge step toward potential change.  But knowing you’re ill doesn’t always lead to a cure.  In a highly political arena, it can lead to even greater clandestine behavior, hiding the “sickness” rather than changing it.  If within the Curia there are those with courage, ones given to soul searching, if the infection is not too pervasive, there’s likely a way back.

It begins largely with leadership of the kind that alters the reward system and/or the route to reward.  What matters to those currently in power is made attainable by more constructive paths.

Where many who attempt this fail is assuming what matters — identifying what should be important — rather than assessing what does matter to the people who are capable of changing.  The way back from pathological politics, when possible at all,  is not usually  through the creation of a whole new path foreign to everyone involved, a sudden transition from bad to good, but discovering within familiar terrain a means of creating a new culture.

It will be interesting to observe how members of the Curia respond to Pope Francis’ observations of how far they’ve strayed.  Will soul-searching be sufficient to “devine” a new path that includes breaking up cliques and revising the qualifications for future members?  Will a leader emerge who can elicit enough support for change, not ridding the terrain of politics altogether, as that’s an impossible goal, but altering it to a more constructive level and creating conditions for long-term maintenance?  Discovery of virulent politics is crucial, but the greater challenge is turning things around when the creators of the problem are still in power.

Taking the high road is the subject of my most recent Big Think blog, as you can read here. But how do we take the high road when under pressure?  In the midst of anger, frustration or other negative emotions, how is it that some people are able to “raise all boats” with their responses?

First, taking the high road is a persuasion tactic. It is among those that involve responding rather than reacting.  As has been discussed at some length in blogs on this site and in my books on politics, we all participate in repetitive episodes each day.  We learn how to talk with various people in certain ways.  Over times, some of these ways of interacting become intractable.  We are stuck in them and if they are dysfunctional, then they are “unwanted repetitive episodes” (URPS).

People who take the high road have the capacity to bypass reaction and URPS and instead to thoughtfully respond.  It’s as if a mental red flag stops an unproductive reaction.  Sometimes this occurs with the advice of others as is often the case with CEOs turning to advisors in high profile challenges.  If you know that you’re inclined to make “off-the-cuff” comments, it pays to have people less inclined around to help avoid this route, especially in crisis situations.

Were more of us to develop the capacity to take the high road and employ it, conflicts in our lives might well be substantially reduced.  Since communication is a lot like chess in that every “move” one person makes limits the choices of the other(s), when the high road is taken, and done so with sincerity, it becomes difficult in most cases for the reactions or responses of others to be as negative as they might be otherwise.

Of course, like any persuasive effort the proof of its legitimacy and also effectiveness long term is follow up.  In the example provided in the blog, the president of the University of Virginia, Teresa Sullivan, has committed to follow through, to do what is best for students and to contribute to the challenge of on-campus assaults shared with so many universities.

So, taking the high road is not a shallow tactic for her but part of the larger strategy of ending the danger students can face on campuses.  It commits one to then following that road.  Otherwise, the next time this approach is used, credibility will have been lost along with effective influence.