Abrasive leadership
by digby
Everyone is so darned sure that it's in the bag that a woman can be elected to the presidency but when I read stuff like this from Kathleen Davis at Fast Company I'm not so sure:
In a report for Fortune.com, [linguist Kieran Snyder] collected 248 performance reviews from 28 companies from large technology corporations to small startups. The reviews came from 180 male and female managers.
Perhaps unsurprisingly critical feedback was doled out in a much higher ratio to women: 58.9% of men’s reviews contained critical feedback, while an overwhelming 87.9% of the reviews received by women did.
Not only did women receive more criticism in their performance reviews, it was less constructive and more personal. For example, the critical feedback men received was mostly geared toward suggestions to develop additional skills:
"There were a few cases where it would have been extremely helpful if you had gone deeper into the details to help move an area forward."
Women received similar constructive feedback, but they also included the personality criticism such as "watch your tone" and "stop being so judgmental." For example:
"You can come across as abrasive sometimes. I know you don’t mean to, but you need to pay attention to your tone."
Abrasive alone was used 17 times to describe 13 different women, but the word never appeared in men’s reviews. In fact, this type of character critique that was absent from men’s reviews showed up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women.
These findings, while from a small sample size, illustrate a well-documented phenomenon for working women: The Double Bind. The double bind is the idea that if a women is too "nice" at work or uses stereotypically feminine vocal characteristics she’ll be seen as too soft and won’t be taken seriously. On the flip side, if a woman is too assertive she’s seen as brusque and bitchy.
ABRASIVE ALONE WAS USED 17 TIMES TO DESCRIBE 13 DIFFERENT WOMEN, BUT THE WORD NEVER APPEARED IN MEN’S REVIEWS.
This paralyzing situation was rumored to be part of the reason why New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson was abruptly fired earlier this year. Even if it wasn’t at the heart of her dismissal, the familiar critiques "abrasive" and "brusque" were often used to describe her management style, but not her male successor.
Unfortunately there isn’t an easy solution to this frustrating situation. Snyder found that even female managers critiqued women’s personalities and not men’s, hinting that these perceptions and biases are deeply and perhaps unconsciously engrained in the way we view women at work.
The first step is perhaps simply pausing and asking why abrasive is an adjective reserved for women.
Maybe this won't apply to Clinton or Warren or whomever makes it t the top of the ticket for the first time. There are women at the top of business after all, just not very many. But I could easily see this unconscious bias being in play. And the women who are potential candidates are all older as well as being female, which makes them even less "appealing" by these standards.
I really do have to wonder if the country is ready to make this leap.
.
