Co-authored by Rachel Dempsey
It's not your fault.
That's the message of the career advice book Rachel and I are working on together, and that's the message of this new report from nonprofit research group Catalyst. Despite all the advice women receive telling them that they fall behind men in the workplace because they don't ask for raises; because they don't network; because they don't promote themselves, it turns out that women actually do all of these things, as much as or more than men. The problem isn't us, it's them.
The Catalyst report takes aim at the claim -- now almost taken for a truism in business literature - that women don't ask for promotions and salary increases at the same level as men. According to the Catalyst report, women were actually found to ask more than men for both increased compensation (63% of women to 54% of men) and a higher job position (19% of women and 17% of men) when they moved on from their first job. And yet, despite the popular wisdom that an employee willing to move to a new company has more negotiating power, women who moved around in their career earned an average of $53,472 less than their counterparts who stayed at the same company.
What the Catalyst report doesn't say is that not only does a lot of the advice out there not help women, much of it actually hurts them. While the takeaway message from the book "Women Don't Ask" is that they should ask, the following caveat is buried in the middle, in a chapter called "Scaring the Boys:" "[W]omen may be perceived to be doing good work only as long as they are toiling away at less important jobs. Once they qualify for and start asking for more important, and therefore more "masculine" jobs, their work may begin to be devalued and their "personal style" may suddenly become a problem."
Masculine characteristics, like aggression, competitiveness, and dominance, overlap almost completely with the characteristics expected of a leader. Feminine characteristics, such as sensitivity and gentleness, overlap almost not at all. For women leaders, writes sociologist Madeline Heilman, the result is "a bad fit between what the woman is perceived to be like and conceptions of what she should be like."
Social scientists call this phenomenon the Backlash Effect. If you're seen as too feminine, you won't get the same opportunities as men in the first place. If you're seen as too masculine, you'll be seen as capable, but judged as undeserving of realizing the opportunities you would otherwise merit, on account of your personality problems. It's a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Unfortunately, much of the advice out there only addresses one side of the problem.
The Catalyst report says that the one behavior that consistently netted women a higher salary was to make their achievements known. This may be true, but as a game plan it needs to be approached with caution. Because of the backlash against aggressive and confident women, women need to soften their strategies for self-promotion much more than men. We'll discuss how to stay on-key while trumpeting your achievements in our next post.
Follow Joan Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JoanCWilliams
Raises are given at management's discretion, typically done once per year and I don't think asking gets you one. Promotions have virtually always been posted and then an interview process begins among the candidates.
I think it's been pretty well established that women earn less based on choices they make once they start families -- ie insisting on being the primary or stay at home parent rather than allowing that to their husbands. that's where the real difference is IMO.
As for only women focused on life balance, I see no difference between "I'm leaving to pick up the kids" and "I'm leaving for a round of golf".
I sit down at my assigned table for a card tournament. The guy who eventually shows up to sit across sees me sitting there looks happy to see me. There's just shy of 1,000 people at the Kansas City Grand Prix feeder tournament and fewer than 20 women playing. Most of the women playing are girlfriends of other players. It is not totally unreasonable for him to assume that its dumb luck that I'm in his bracket.
I don't play dumb or lie. But I don't make any effort to correct him either. If he asks how long I've been playing the game I'll say, "16 years". He probably won't.
We play. I usually win. Guys who are nervous enough about their odds to visibly signal relief at the sight of a female opponent tend not to be the better players.
He gets mad and storms off. Regressing to childhood in a pout that would do my nephew proud.
I have not been rude. I have not sharked him or played dumb. I have not insulted his play. And I frequently see the same guys lose to male opponents without losing self control.
But if I win, they are unable to maintain good sportsmanship.
Why is that?
Not A Guy
In my experience as a guy, it is difficult to resist such firmly ingrained ideas. Knowing that it is completely irrational and sexist to feel shame and anger at being bested by a woman doesn't stop the emotions from presenting themselves, unbidden, in my mind.
Combating such feelings requires self awareness, self control, and an understanding of why they are so toxic in the first place. The guys you describe could lack any number of the above. This doesn't excuse their behavior in any way, but I hope it helps to explain it.
Had I read only those four words, I could have guessed that women were being sold a book. You know what definitely won't advance your gender? Perpetual victimhood.
"Masculine characteristics, like aggression, competitiveness, and dominance"
See, that's blatant stereotyping that doesn't reflect positively on men at all. Who will write a book about that? No one. Will I grab onto it and say woe is me I'm a victim? No, because it gets me nowhere. It's wrong and I'll call it out when it happens, but I won't use it to illicit sympathy.
When women acted frail and helpless, that didn't make them appealing as leaders. When women act like the most exaggerated stereotypes of what they think men are, apparently that doesn't work either. The common thread? Both are an act. No one likes a person who seems fake.
Contrast with anneloyd's post below...with which I wouldn't be surprised if he agreed.
(I do.)
Why should business change to suit women? Why shouldn't women change business to suit themselves? Ergo, start their own businesses and show the "oppressive" men how it is done?
"I am woman, hear me roar!" is getting a tad old. Despite enormous advancements by women within the workplace -- CEO's of major corporations, board memberships, and lest we forget: Oprah and her mega-empire -- we continue to hear about how women are so under appreciated, and underpaid. And I say, BUNK.
Women have access to funds and subsidies men don't through minority set asides. Women have anti-discrimination laws which give them a leg up over men as well. Women have succeeded in gaining a foothold in formally exclusive male professions such as firefighting and police forces -- in some cities because they have succeeded in having the admissions requirements lowered to allow it.
It is time for women to stand on their own merits. Instead of insisting that men change to suit them, perhaps they should change to suit the marketplace. Men have had to do this for thousands of year.
Reality is that this is much more difficult for a woman in today's society because (i) relations with men are never that clear and (ii) relations between women are, usually, much less straightforward than relations between men.
Add to that the pregnancy time issue and the increased likelyhood to stay at home to take care of the child.
compound all that by society's values where men are hunters and women are chosing the hunters and you make for a very different approach to life and to work / ambition.
Never ask for a raise. If the company isn't giving you raises it is because they don't value you or your work. This is especially true if they give you a good review but no raise. At least if they give you a review showing where you need to improve they are interested in your success.
If they give you a positive review and no raise they are a loser company. Why would you want to work for a company like that? Go find another job with a company that will value you. The time to brag is in your interview. Once you get the job just do it. If its a good company trust me you will get noticed and the raises will follow.
I have left 5 jobs in my life for this reason and in each case they offered to beat the other offer. Never accept it. They just want to keep you on until they can find a replacement and have you train them.
Know who you are dealing with, and meet them with honesty and you will be rewarded. If not immediately, then later on. Put yourself in their shoes, and imagine what support they need, offer it and expect no immediate reward... Set your EGO aside, and just WAIT....
1. Work for a company that is tuned into relationships and employee nurturing and you will do well if you are into relationships and employee nurturing independent of your gender or race - at least until they go bankrupt.
2. Work for a company that values results independent of gender or race and produce results and you will be successful - as will the company.
3. Work for a company that is interested in your gender or race and you are working for the wrong company.
The days of the "mother" company that took care of its employees independent of their job performance is as gone as the three martini lunch. It is sad, I liked my three martini lunches. But to suggest that the "old boy network" has its boot on the throat of women everywhere is just tired old BS.
The company I work for is still at a loss to discover why women don't stay. I am one of only two design-qualified electrical engineers at a nuclear power plant, and have been there nine years.
Do I want to spend the rest of my life trying to educate the men I work with on how to relate to professional women, or will I choose to go somewhere else where the situation is already better? Can you guess what I will do?
Case in point: at a recent monthly safety meeting the person assigned to discuss a wellness topic chose the topic of hormones (male and female) and interjected several comments about his ex-wife and her moodswings. Our engineering director was in attendance and said nothing. Yes, this still happens.
The larger issue is that women still get left out of important discussions. My own supervisor never, ever has sit-downs with me. He called in sick last year on the day my evaluation was scheduled. I've already gone over his head and am waiting for the backlash. Meanwhile, I update my resume.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/24346/americans-prefer-male-boss-female-boss.aspx
40% of women prefer to have a male boss, compared to 20% of women who prefer a female bodd. 32% have no preference.
Also:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1206053/Women-prefer-work-male-bosses-better-managers-prone-moods.html#ixzz1bN5YjwcT
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
But I'm interested in why women don't "elect" to raise children. Didn't child care come up for discussion when considering whether to have another child?
And somehow I was expected to change my approach while still achieving all of my deliverables in a very, very fast-paced, demanding, and deadline-driven environment. It astounds me even today how much bias there is against women in corporate environments and how the ones who are the most successful are also ultra-feminine. How's that for a reality check?
Glad I'm working for myself these days. The only butts I have to kiss are my clients'.
Anytime a women is described as "too aggressive" it's a red flag for a male-dominated environment in need of enlightenment.
Let me ask you, and this is a rhetorical question, how many times have you heard women being objectified in male conversation in such an environment? If you can answer honestly, then there's your answer.