Friend and Foe: When to Cooperate, When to Compete, and How to Succeed at Both (11 page)

Women need to act with confidence and agency to get ahead. But when they do so they face a potential backlash. They are dammed if they do and damned if they don't.

To understand this double bind that women face, we first need to understand that there are two types of stereotypes. One is called a
descriptive
stereotype. These are stereotypes about what one
is likely to
do. The other is called a
prescriptive
stereotype. These are stereotypes about what one
should
do. Women are particularly burdened by prescriptive stereotypes. They are
expected
to be warm and deferential and they are
not expected
to be demanding and to ask for more money. These sentiments were exemplified in the comments that Microsoft's CEO Satya Nadella gave during the 2014 Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing conference when he remarked, “It's not really about asking for a raise, but knowing and having faith that the system will give you the right raise. That might be one of the initial ‘super powers,' that quite frankly, women [who] don't ask for a raise have. It's good karma. It will come back.” Although he quickly issued an apology—“If you think you deserve a raise, you should just ask”—the implication of his initial comments was clear: Women shouldn't ask.

This prescriptive stereotype, and the double bind that it creates, limit the ability of women to compete effectively.

Consider the act of negotiation. We mentioned that women are less likely to ask for a higher salary when they accept a job offer. Hannah Riley Bowles of Harvard has found that women are right to be cautious about asking. Across multiple studies, she explored what happens when men and women behave assertively. Even when men and women engage in the
exact same
behavior, women are the ones who get punished for not accepting first offers and asking for more.

Consider what happened when one female academic recently tried to negotiate her job offer. In March of 2014, after the professor was offered a tenure-track position in the Philosophy Department at Nazareth College in Rochester, New York, she did what many academics do: She wrote an e-mail proposing a counteroffer. “As you know, I am very enthusiastic about the possibility of coming to Nazareth,” she politely wrote. “Granting some of the following provisions would make my decision easier.” After listing her requests, she ended with this line: “I know that some of these might be easier to grant than others. Let me know what you think.”

Much to her surprise, Nazareth College didn't respond with a subsequent counteroffer. Instead, they simply rescinded the offer altogether: “Thank you for your e-mail. The search committee discussed your provisions. They were also reviewed by the Dean and the VPAA. It was determined that on the whole these provisions indicate [a lack of] interest in teaching at a college, like ours…Thus, the institution has decided to withdraw its offer of employment to you.” As a
Slate
article aptly summed up the moral of the story: “Negotiating While Female: Sometimes It
Does
Hurt to Ask.”

The professor had the nerve to express confidence in her skills and talents and to ask for the compensation she felt she deserved, and she was immediately punished for doing so.

Imagine the following situation. You observe an interview. The interviewer asks, “Do you like performing in high-pressure situations?” And the job candidate responds, “I tend to thrive in pressure situations. For example, in high school I was the editor of the school paper and I had to prepare a weekly column under deadline all the time…and I always pulled it off—so well that sometimes I even surprised myself. My supervisors noticed also and were quite complimentary.”

If you were watching this interaction, what would your reaction to the candidate be? Well, the research has found that it likely would depend on whether the job candidate was a man or a woman. Laurie Rudman of Rutgers University conducted an experiment using this exact wording and only varied the gender of the applicant. And she found that when a man delivered this response, he was seen as confident and competent; observers said they would want to hire him. But when a woman expressed the same words, she was viewed as less likable and judged to be not a good fit for the job.

This experiment highlights the double standard that women face. For the same behavior, men are characterized as confident, but women as arrogant; men take charge, but women are bossy; men are persistent, but women are pushy. In a
New Yorker
cartoon, a queen complains to a king, “But when a
woman
has someone's head cut off she's a bitch.”

This double standard doesn't exist just in the workplace. It was also on display in the political trajectory of one of America's most visible power couples: Bill and Hillary Clinton. As Bill Clinton geared up to run for president in 1992, it was clear that the career success of his wife was going to be a problem. A strategy memo from her husband's 1992 presidential campaign explained the campaign's dilemma: “While voters genuinely admire Hillary Clinton's intelligence and tenacity, they are uncomfortable with these traits in a woman. She needs to project a softer side—some humor, some informality.” Or, in short: “What voters find slick in Bill Clinton, they find ruthless in Hillary.” While her husband was lauded for his strength and tenacity, she was punished for exhibiting the same traits.

And it's not just men who discriminate against assertive women. Women do it too. In the negotiation study that Hannah Riley Bowles ran that we mentioned earlier, women punished other women who asked for more in a negotiation just as much as men did. And in the studies done by Laurie Rudman of Rutgers University, both men and women were less likely to hire assertive, self-promoting women. Women impose that same double bind on each other.

But no woman is as punishing to other women as the Queen Bee herself.

Similarity attracts. Over a hundred years of social science research reveals that we prefer to associate with others who are like us. In hiring and promoting employees, we select people who went to the same schools as we did, grew up in the same town as we did, think like us…and are the same gender as we are. Sociologists call this homophily, the tendency to cooperate and bond with similar others.

Homophily is an almost universal truth. Except, that is, for the Queen Bee. In our discussion of hierarchy, we lionized bees as the quintessential superorganism. Bees epitomize cooperation. But there is one exception. Queen Bees—the rulers of the hive—don't cooperate, they compete. And as they compete, they can sting, both literally and figuratively. When it comes to gender, women in positions of power—aka Queen Bees—can be the most punishing toward other women below them in their organizations. Queen Bees tend to see other women not as friends but as foes to be thwarted.

Kelly Smith knows what it's like to be stung by a Queen Bee. She was a smart, ambitious young consultant who worked for one of the few female partners in a major consulting firm. Initially, Kelly was thrilled to have a female partner as her boss. Here was a woman whose accomplishments she could admire, and who might even help Kelly avoid the obstacles and overcome barriers that she had once faced. However, instead of feeling nurtured or mentored by her role model, she felt as if she were constantly under siege. In meetings, Kelly's ideas were summarily dismissed. And then there were the meetings she wasn't even invited to attend. And it got even worse: It turned out her boss was bad-mouthing her behind her back, calling into question whether she had the skills to do the job.

Why would Kelly's boss be dismissive, exclude her from meetings, and engage in backbiting? Because Kelly's boss wanted to be the only Queen on the throne. If she could shatter Kelly's confidence and derail Kelly's path to partnership, Kelly would pose no threat.

Obviously, not all powerful women behave this way. So what turns someone into a Queen Bee? Michelle Duguid of Washington University has spent years studying the precise conditions that turn a high-status woman into someone who prevents other women from joining her on the throne.

Here are the conditions that Michelle has found that spawn Queen Bees. First, Queen Bees only develop when they are alone or surrounded by very few women in a group. Being the only female in a group makes a woman feel special, so she doesn't want another woman invading her privileged castle. Second, Queen Bees arise in
high-status
groups; being in the group has to be socially and materially valuable. Third, Queen Bees target only highly qualified women who are rivals to their throne.

What these three ingredients—solo women, in high-status groups, settled just above other talented women—tell us is that the catalyst of Queen Bee behavior is essentially a threat to one's power. It is the fear of losing one's footing on a unique, high-status perch to another female bee that brings out the Queen's stinger.

Michelle has conducted a number of clever laboratory studies to demonstrate how the rise of Queen Bees can occur in the workplace. In her typical study, participants take part in a selection committee. Some committees are high status (they work directly with high-ranking officials in the university), whereas others are low status (they work with student advisors). Some committees are made up of almost all men whereas other committees have more women. The committee is tasked with selecting a new member. They have two options: a male and a female. Sometimes the female is very competent and, importantly, has higher test scores than the female committee member. Other times, the female applicant lags behind.

Consistent with her theory, Michelle found that the female committee member was more likely to vote in favor of the man over the woman when she was a) the only female committee member; b) in a high-status group; and c) the female candidate had high scores. Interestingly, these women were often honest about the threat they felt. They readily agreed with statements like this: “If Samantha is a group member, my group might favor her over me.”

Naomi Ellemers of Leiden University has found similar evidence for Queen Bees in academics. She found that it was women who had achieved their success at a time when few other female academics had been successful who were especially likely to be Queen Bees. These pioneering women had achieved something rare, and after achieving their success, they retreated into their castle—and put up a big wall to keep others out.

This may all sound depressing. But there is hope. Michelle Duguid found that when women were made to feel secure in their position, the stinger receded. Women who felt secure were more likely to support other women, even when those other women were potential stars.

The Queen Bee phenomenon appears to be diminishing. As more women emerge as leaders, the psychological forces that produce Queen Bees—solo women in high-status groups—start to recede. In time, we hope to see the Queen Bee effect become a psychological and historical relic.

Michelle's research starts to give us insights into how ambitious women can find the right balance between gaining power and being punished for being seen as
too
powerful.

Power affects women similarly to men. But because women have less power in society and face prescriptive stereotypes that prohibit assertiveness, these forces combine to give women less latitude to act with power. In other words, when women lean in, they often face a backlash.

To truly eliminate this double bind, we need the whole village to participate in the solution, not just women. And here's the good news. According to our research, when
groups
achieve greater gender equality, then everyone, including men, benefits. When it comes to gender equality, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Imagine you are the male CEO of a company. You believe it is the right thing to do to create a culture that embraces diversity and creates equal opportunities for all of your organizational members, regardless of gender or race, to rise up the corporate ladder. What can you do?

Like leaders of so many organizations, you might propose a diversity training program. Your goal in creating such a program is to make every member of the organization, especially white men, aware of the subtle and often unconscious biases they harbor. Your hope is that your managers, armed with this awareness and some practical tools for dealing with bias, will help create a culture of equality that helps level the playing field, and ultimately get women and minorities promoted into management.

There's only one problem with diversity training programs. They often don't work.

When Frank Dobbin of Harvard University obtained data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on 708 private sector organizations from 1971 to 2002, he found that the diversity training programs had
zero effect
on increasing the number of women in management. In fact, these programs actually
decreased
the number of black women in management. Why? Frank suggests it's because these programs create a reaction that triggers a backlash effect that outweighs any positive effects.

Well, if diversity training programs don't work, what does? It turns out there are a few things organizations can do to build the kind of workplace where women can lean in without getting pushed back.

First, there has to be a commitment and accountability from the top to support and encourage diversity. And this commitment can't be framed merely as a prosocial endeavor. Rather, the argument in favor of diversity needs to be presented as a business imperative. It can't be just lip service: Research shows that a commitment to diversity helps groups and organizations make better decisions and earn greater profits. For example, a 2012 study conducted by the Credit Suisse Research Institute found that the stock performance of companies that had both men and women board members outperformed those with all-male boards. And Sheen Levine of the University of Texas at Dallas has found that greater diversity in his experimental markets diminished speculative price bubbles, and that market prices fit the true values of stocks 58 percent better in diverse markets in both Asia and North America.

So, what can leaders do to increase diversity? Seminars alone don't help, but committees and formal roles can. For example, the consulting and accounting firm Deloitte created committees that were tasked not only with analyzing and addressing the gender gap, but also with monitoring results to ensure accountability. At PricewaterhouseCoopers, the chief diversity officer is a partner and a member of the leadership team that reports directly to CEO Robert Moritz. As Moritz notes, “Programs matter. While the ultimate goal of any diversity initiative is cultural change, formal programs send a powerful signal.” In the employment data that Frank Dobbin analyzed, the introduction of these departments and committees had huge effects: They increased the number of white women and black women (and black men) hired into the organization.

Another factor that makes a difference is the availability of networking and mentoring programs to help women and minorities. But these programs only succeed when they are inclusive and engage senior leadership. For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers recently asked all 2,700 of its partners to serve as a mentor for at least three diverse professionals. These social connections not only help people build trust, but they also give people access to information and opportunities that may not publicly be available. By connecting aspiring female managers with both male and female senior executives, these programs help these managers gain tacit knowledge needed to navigate the organization. And the Frank Dobbin Equal Employment Opportunity data reveal that these programs are associated with an increase in the number of white and black women in management positions.

Finally, and critically, hiring and promotion systems should be fair and unbiased. This is easier said than done. A series of studies conducted by Eric Uhlmann of INSEAD offers us insight into how to get this right. In one study, Eric had people evaluate two candidates for the position of police chief. Each candidate was superior on one criterion: One had more education while the other had more experience in the field. He manipulated the gender of the applicants so that half of the evaluators saw a male name attached to the resume with more education and a female name attached to the resume with more experience. The other half saw the female name attached to the resume with more education and the male name attached to the resume with more experience. When evaluators saw that the male had more education, they picked the man and proclaimed that education was the critical criterion. But when evaluators saw that the female candidate had more education, they still picked the man, but now declared that experience was the more important criterion. Gender discrimination occurred because evaluators focused on whatever criterion benefited the man. But Eric then ran a new experiment in which evaluators had to commit to the criteria that they would use
before
seeing any information about the applicants: In this case, the gender bias disappeared! From these and related studies, we have learned the importance of establishing criteria
in advance
. And once we have these criteria, we need to consistently and transparently apply these to our decisions. If we can do this, we can reduce gender bias and promote diversity.

As we showed earlier, when women have greater economic and political participation in a society, the gender difference in math ability disappears. Similarly, when organizations create a culture that increases the participation of women, women prosper. We can see this in Frank Dobbin's data: The proportion of women in top management increased the probability that other women were promoted to management positions. Remember Michelle Duguid's work showing that Queen Bees disappear when there are many women in high-status positions? Having more women in higher ranks not only decreases bias by men, it also decreases bias by women.

And women shouldn't be the only ones pushing for gender equality. Even though gender equality can feel like a zero-sum contest—as women gain in power, men have to lose—this thinking is flawed. Gender equality can
expand
the pie of resources for women
and
men.

Recall the finding that countries with great gender egalitarianism had higher-performing female national soccer teams. Well, research we have done with Roderick Swaab of INSEAD has also found something even more remarkable: Countries with greater gender equality not only had better female teams, but they also had better
male
teams as well!

Why? A country that values women is also more likely to value other segments of society as well. This appreciation allows societies and their companies to tap the potential of a much wider pool of talent. And that is exactly what we found in our studies: Countries that had greater gender equality had higher-performing male soccer teams because they were able to field more talented teams.

Spain's recent promotion of women's rights highlights how a culture that promotes gender equality can help elevate not only women, but men, too. Francisco Franco, the dictator who governed Spain from 1939 to 1975, institutionalized gender inequality. Under Franco, women could not open bank accounts, apply for passports, or even sign a contract without their husband's permission.

After Franco passed away, gender equality started to ripple through the country. On the Gender Empowerment Index, Spain jumped from a 40 (out of 100) in 1990 to a score of 70 only 12 years later. In fact, in 2008, Spain became the first European country whose cabinet had more women than men in positions of power (nine women and eight men, including Spain's first female defense minister, Carme Chacón). It is also notable that one of the cabinet ministers is the minister for equality, demonstrating a structural commitment to greater opportunity. This is a remarkable milestone in a country whose culture so glorified masculinity that it gave us the term
machismo
.

Indeed, these changes in gender equality may explain why the
male
athletes of Spain have exploded into a golden age of athletic dominance. In 2010, the Spanish soccer team won their first World Cup, Alberto Contador won his second straight Tour de France, and Rafael Nadal won three straight major tennis championships—the French Open, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open. The average year of birth of the World Cup soccer team was 1984, Contador was born in 1983, and Nadal in 1986; all of these male performers were born after Franco's reign had come to an end.

Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero put it well when he said: “The most unfair domination is that of one half of humanity over the other. The more equality women will have, the more civilized and tolerant society will be.”

There are simple actions that organizations can take to level the playing field. These actions may be designed to help women, but they can also benefit everyone, including men. Take this example described by Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant. In story pitch meetings for the television show
The Shield
, the producer Glen Mazzara became concerned when he realized that two female writers rarely spoke up during the meetings. When Glen pulled aside the female writers and encouraged them to speak up, they laughed at his suggestion. “Watch what happens when we do,” they replied. At the next meeting, Glen quickly noticed the constant interruptions whenever the female writers spoke. So he introduced a new rule for pitch meetings—no interruptions. This rule applied to every writer, men and women alike. Not only did the women now have the space to express their ideas, but the group as a whole generated better pitches. The no interruption rule leveled the playing field and produced a group-level benefit.

So equality makes societies and nations not only more tolerant, but more successful as well. Whether it is in the classroom, on the athletic field, in the pitch room, or in the boardroom, a culture of equality can lead a group to have a competitive advantage over its less equality-minded rivals. When it comes to gender, it is the cooperative and inclusive approach that increases talent levels and predicts competitive success.