Lean In
Page 21
9. Tomi-Ann Roberts and Susan Nolan-Hoeksema, “Sex Differences in Reactions to Evaluative Feedback,” Sex Roles 21, nos. 11–12 (December 1989): 725–47; and Maria Johnson and Vicki S. Helgeson, “Sex Differences in Response to Evaluative Feedback: A Field Study,” Psychology of Women Quarterly 26, no. 3 (2002): 242–51.
10. Sylvia Beyer, “Gender Differences in Causal Attributions by College Students of Performance on Course Examinations,” Current Psychology 17, no. 4 (1998): 354. For a review of consequences from negative self-evaluation, including depression and lower aspirations, see Sylvia Beyer and Edward M. Bowden, “Gender Differences in Self-Perception: Convergent Evidence from Three Measures of Accuracy and Bias,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23, no. 2 (1997): 169.
11. Nicole Perlroth and Claire Cain Miller, “The $1.6 Billion Woman, Staying on Message,” New York Times, February 4, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/business/sheryl-sandberg-of-facebook-staying-on-message.html?pagewanted=all.
12. Dana R. Carney, Amy J. C. Cuddy, and Andy J. Yap, “Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance,” Psychological Science 21, no. 10 (2010): 1363–68.
13. Bianca Bosker, “Cisco Tech Chief Outlines the Advantages of Being a Woman in Tech,” The Huffington Post, October 27, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/cisco-chief-technology-officer-woman-in-tech_n_1035880.html.
14. Claire Cain Miller, “For Incoming I.B.M. Chief, Self-Confidence Is Rewarded, New York Times, October 27, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/business/for-incoming-ibm-chief-self-confidence-rewarded.html.
15. Caroline Howard, “The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women: This Year It’s All About Reach,” Forbes, August 24, 2011, http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2011/08/24/the-worlds-100-most-powerful-women-this-year-its-all-about-reach/.
3. SUCCESS AND LIKEABILITY
1. A description and analysis of the study were provided by Professor Frank J. Flynn in discussion with the author, June 22, 2011.
2. To read the case study, see Kathleen McGinn and Nicole Tempest, Heidi Roizen, Harvard Business School Case Study #9–800–228 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2009).
3. Madeline E. Heilman and Tyler G. Okimoto, “Why Are Women Penalized for Success at Male Tasks?: The Implied Communality Deficit,” Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 1 (2007): 81–92; Madeline E. Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks,” Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 3 (2004): 416–27; and Madeline E. Heilman, Caryn J. Block, and Richard F. Martell, “Sex Stereotypes: Do They Influence Perceptions of Managers?” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 10, no. 6 (1995): 237–52. For helpful reviews of relevant issues, see Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders,” Psychological Review 109, no. 3 (2002): 573–98; Madeline E. Heilman, “Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women’s Ascent up the Organizational Ladder,” Journal of Social Issues 57, no. 4 (2001): 657–74; and Cecilia L. Ridgeway, “Gender, Status, and Leadership,” Journal of Social Issues 57, no. 4 (2001): 637–55. It should be noted that successful women pay a likeability penalty specifically in arenas considered to be male domains.
4. Cyndi Kernahan, Bruce D. Bartholow, and B. Ann Bettencourt, “Effects of Category-Based Expectancy Violation on Affect-Related Evaluations: Toward a Comprehensive Model,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 22, no. 2 (2000): 85–100; and B. Ann Bettencourt et al., “Evaluations of Ingroup and Outgroup Members: The Role of Category-Based Expectancy Violation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33, no. 3 (1997): 244–75. Research on this topic, known as “expectancy theory,” finds that we tend to evaluate people based upon stereotypes about the groups to which they belong. When people act in ways that violate our preconceived expectations, we take notice and evaluate them more extremely and intensely than we would otherwise.
5. Shankar Vedantam, “ ‘Nicer Sex’ Image at Play in Politics,” Chicago Tribune, November 13, 2007, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007–11–13/news/0711120690_1_female-leaders-women-and-leadership-social-psychologist.
6. Ken Auletta, “A Woman’s Place: Can Sheryl Sandberg Upend Silicon Valley’s Male-Dominated Culture?,” The New Yorker, July 11, 2012, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all.
7. Professor Deborah H. Gruenfeld, discussion with the author, June 22, 2012.
8. A study by Madeline E. Heilman et al. (2004) found that among competent employees, those who were less liked received fewer organizational reward recommendations (such as getting put on the fast track, salary increases) than employees who were liked. See Heilman et al., “Penalties for Success,” 416–27.
9. Laurie A. Rudman, “Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women: The Costs and Benefits of Counterstereotypical Impression Management,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no. 3 (1998): 629–45; Laurie A. Rudman and Peter Glick, “Feminized Management and Backlash Toward Agentic Women: The Hidden Costs to Women of a Kinder, Gentler Image of Middle Managers,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, no. 5 (1999): 1004–10; and Laurie A. Rudman and Peter Glick, “Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women,” Journal of Social Issues 57, no. 4 (2001): 743–62.
10. Professor Francis J. Flynn, discussion with the author, June 22, 2011.
11. Madeline E. Heilman and Julie J. Chen, “Same Behavior, Different Consequences: Reactions to Men’s and Women’s Altruistic Citizenship Behaviors,” Journal of Applied Psychology 90, no. 3 (2005): 431–41.
12. Catalyst, The Double-Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don’t (July 2007), 1, http://www.catalyst.org/file/45/the%20double-bind%20dilemma%20for%20women%20in%20leadership%20damned%20if%20you%20do,%20doomed%20if%20you%20don%E2%80%99t.pdf.
13. Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever, Women Don’t Ask (New York: Bantam Books, 2007), 1–4; Linda Babcock et al., “Gender Differences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations,” in Social Psychology and Economics, ed. David De Cremer, Marcel Zeelenberg, and J. Keith Murnighan (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006), 239–59; and Fiona Greig, “Propensity to Negotiate and Career Advancement: Evidence from an Investment Bank That Women Are on a ‘Slow Elevator,’ ” Negotiation Journal 24, no. 4 (2008): 495–508. In general, studies find that men negotiate more than women and tend to reap more rewards from their efforts. However, these trends depend on the context in which the negotiation occurs. Small et al. (2007) found that the gender difference in initiating a negotiation disappears if the situation is characterized as an opportunity to “ask” as opposed to an opportunity to “negotiate.” And Bowles et al. (2005) found that women’s performance dramatically improves if they are negotiating for others and not for themselves. See Deborah A. Small et al., “Who Goes to the Bargaining Table? The Influence of Gender and Framing on the Initiation of Negotiation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, no. 4 (2007): 600–613; and Hannah Riley Bowles et al., “Constraints and Triggers: Situational Mechanics of Gender in Negotiation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89, no. 6 (2005): 951–65.
14. Babcock and Laschever, Women Don’t Ask, 1–2.
15. Emily T. Amanatullah and Catherine H. Tinsley, “Punishing Female Negotiators for Asserting Too Much … or Not Enough: Exploring Why Advocacy Moderates Backlash Against Assertive Female Negotiators,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 120, no. 1 (2013): 110–22; and Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Lei Lai, “Social Incentives for Gender Differences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations: S
ometimes It Does Hurt to Ask,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103, no. 1 (2007): 84–103.
16. Emily T. Amanatullah and Michael W. Morris, “Negotiating Gender Roles: Gender Differences in Assertive Negotiating Are Mediated by Women’s Fear of Backlash and Attenuated When Negotiating on Behalf of Others,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98, no. 2 (2010): 256–67; and Bowles et al., “Constraints and Triggers,” 951–65.
17. Bowles, Babcock, and Lai, “Social Incentives for Gender Differences,” 84–103.
18. Hannah Riley Bowles and Linda Babcock, “How Can Women Escape the Compensation Negotiation Dilemma? Relational Accounts Are One Answer,” Psychology of Women Quarterly, article in press (2012), 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684312455524.
19. Ibid., 1–17.
20. Cecilia L. Ridgeway, “Status in Groups: The Importance of Motivation,” American Sociological Review 47, no. 1 (1982): 76–88. In male group situations, women were found to be more influential when they made group-oriented statements (for example, “I think it’s important that we cooperate”).
21. Bowles and Babcock, “How Can Women Escape the Compensation Negotiation Dilemma?” 1–17.
22. Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever, Ask for It: How Women Can Use the Power of Negotiation to Get What They Really Want (New York: Bantam Dell, 2008), 253.
23. For more information and advice about how to be “relentlessly pleasant,” see ibid., 251–66.
24. E. B. Boyd, “Where Is the Female Mark Zuckerberg?,” San Francisco, December 2011, http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/where-the-female-mark-zuckerberg.
25. Jessica Valenti, “Sad White Babies with Mean Feminist Mommies,” Jessica Valenti blog, June 19, 2012, http://jessicavalenti.tumblr.com/post/25465502300/sad-white-babies-with-mean-feminist-mommies-the.
4. IT’S A JUNGLE GYM, NOT A LADDER
1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Number of Jobs Held, Labor Market Activity, and Earnings Growth Among the Youngest Baby Boomers: Results from a Longitudinal Study (July 2012), http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf. This report found that the average person born between 1957 and 1964 had 11.3 jobs between the ages of eighteen and forty-six, with almost half of these jobs being held between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four.
2. For reviews of the research on women tending to be more risk averse than men, see Marianne Bertrand, “New Perspectives on Gender,” in Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 4B, ed. Orley Ashenfelter and David Card (Amsterdam: North Holland, 2010), 1544–90; Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy, “Gender Differences in Preferences,” Journal of Economic Literature 47, no. 2 (2009): 448–74; and Catherine C. Eckel and Phillip J. Grossman, “Men, Women, and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence,” in Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, vol. 1, ed. Charles R. Plott and Vernon L. Smith (Amsterdam: North Holland, 2008), 1061–73.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Drowning Risks in Natural Water Settings, http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsDrowningRisks/.
4. Karen S. Lyness and Christine A. Schrader, “Moving Ahead or Just Moving? An Examination of Gender Differences in Senior Corporate Management Appointments,” Gender & Organization Management 31, no. 6 (2006): 651–76. This study examined 952 announcements in The Wall Street Journal about senior management appointments. Analysis of the announcements found that compared to their male counterparts, women’s new roles were more similar to their previous roles and women were less likely to switch to new companies. Among those in managerial staff positions, women were less likely than men to move into a line position or into a new functional area. These differences suggest that women’s job changes may offer fewer career benefits than the benefits men receive for their job moves.
5. Londa Schiebinger, Andrea Davies, and Shannon K. Gilmartin, Dual-Career Academic Couples: What Universities Need to Know, Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Stanford University (2008), http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/DualCareerFinal_0.pdf; Kimberlee A. Shauman and Mary C. Noonan, “Family Migration and Labor Force Outcomes: Sex Differences in Occupational Context,” Social Forces 85, no. 4 (2007): 1735–64; and Pam Stone, Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007).
6. Irene E. De Pater et al., “Challenging Experiences: Gender Differences in Task Choice,” Journal of Managerial Psychology 24, no. 1 (2009): 4–28. In this study, the authors surveyed close to one hundred business school students about their internship experience. The survey found that in conditions of “higher decision latitude,” where interns had more control over the things they did during their internship, women reported having fewer challenging experiences. In Irene E. De Pater et al., “Individual Task Choice and the Division of Challenging Tasks Between Men and Women,” Group & Organization Management 34, no. 5 (2009): 563–89, researchers found that when pairs of men and women negotiated over the assignment of tasks, men ended up with the more challenging ones. For findings that suggest that gendered beliefs such as “women need protection” (benevolent sexism) impede women’s access to challenging tasks, see Eden B. King et al., “Benevolent Sexism at Work: Gender Differences in the Distribution of Challenging Developmental Experiences,” Journal of Management 38, no. 6 (2012): 1835–66.
7. Georges Desvaux, Sandrine Devillard-Hoellinger, and Mary C. Meaney, “A Business Case for Women,” The McKinsey Quarterly (September 2008): 4, http://www.rctaylor.com/Images/A_Business_Case_for_Women.pdf.
8. Lloyds TSB found that their female employees tended not to put themselves up for promotion despite being 8 percent more likely to meet or surpass performance standards than their male colleagues. See Desvaux, Devillard-Hoellinger, and Meaney, “A Business Case for Women,” 4. Studies on gender and promotion mostly at the university level in England and Australia also find that women are hesitant to put themselves up for promotion, often because they undervalue their skills, abilities, and work experience. See Anne Ross-Smith and Colleen Chesterman, “ ‘Girl Disease’: Women Managers’ Reticence and Ambivalence Towards Organizational Advancement,” Journal of Management & Organization 15, no. 5 (2009): 582–95; Liz Doherty and Simonetta Manfredi, “Women’s Progression to Senior Positions in English Universities,” Employee Relations 28, no. 6 (2006): 553–72; and Belinda Probert, “ ‘I Just Couldn’t Fit It In’: Gender and Unequal Outcomes in Academic Careers,” Gender, Work and Organization 12, no. 1 (2005): 50–72.
9. Hannah Seligson, “Ladies, Take off Your Tiara!,” The Huffington Post, February 20, 2007, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hannah-seligson/ladies-take-off-your-tiar_b_41649.html.
5. ARE YOU MY MENTOR?
1. Mentors provide advice, support, and feedback to their mentee. Sponsors hold senior positions and use their influence and power to advocate on behalf of their mentee, such as pushing to get the mentee a stretch assignment or a promotion. For a discussion of the differences between mentoring and sponsoring, see Herminia Ibarra, Nancy M. Carter, and Christine Silva, “Why Men Still Get More Promotions than Women,” Harvard Business Review 88, no. 9 (2010): 80–85; and Sylvia Ann Hewlett et al., The Sponsor Effect: Breaking Through the Last Glass Ceiling, a Harvard Business Review Research Report (December 2010): 5–7.
2. Studies have found that people who are mentored and sponsored report having more career success (such as higher compensation, a greater number of promotions, greater career and job satisfaction, and more career commitment). See Tammy D. Allen et al., “Career Benefits Associated with Mentoring for Protégés: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology 89, no. 1 (2004): 127–36. A study of several thousand white collar workers with at least a bachelor’s degree found that sponsorship seemed to encourage both men and women to ask for a stretch assignment and a pay increase. Among the men surveyed
who had a sponsor, 56 percent were likely to ask for a stretch assignment and 49 percent were likely to ask for a pay raise. In contrast, among the men surveyed without a sponsor, only 43 percent were likely to ask for a stretch assignment and 37 percent were likely to ask for a pay raise. Among the women surveyed who had a sponsor, 44 percent were likely to ask for a stretch assignment and 38 percent were likely to ask for a pay raise. In contrast, among the women surveyed without a sponsor, only 36 percent were likely to ask for a stretch assignment and only 30 percent were likely to ask for a pay raise. See Hewlett et al., The Sponsor Effect, 9–11.
3. For a discussion of the difficulties women can have with mentorship, see Kimberly E. O’Brien et al., “A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Gender Differences in Mentoring,” Journal of Management 36, no. 2 (2010): 539–40. In general, men and women receive similar amounts of mentoring, yet not all mentoring provides the same types of benefits and rewards. For example, mentors who have more power and sway in their organizations (typically white men) can provide better career opportunities to their protégés than can mentors who have less power (often women and minorities). Research indicates that men, particularly white men, tend to have more influential mentors than women (or minority men) have. A Catalyst study found that while 78 percent of the male business professionals were mentored by a CEO or another senior executive, only 69 percent of the female professionals were mentored by those at the highest levels. This difference disadvantages women because mentees with more senior mentors reported faster career progression. See Ibarra, Carter, and Silva, “Why Men Still Get More Promotions than Women,” 80–85. Also see George F. Dreher and Taylor H. Cox Jr., “Race, Gender, and Opportunity: A Study of Compensation Attainment and the Establishing of Mentoring Relationships,” Journal of Applied Psychology 81, no. 3 (1996): 297–308.