When breaking glass ceilings, don’t forget to pack your dictionary. We’re enthralled in a movement of diversity quotas and power-suits, but what if gender bias could be combated with linguistics?
In my online Economics class last year, I was approached over the course forum by a peer, requesting to study together in the lead up to exams. With an open mind, I accepted and worked with this person virtually throughout the term. They were intelligent and confident, with robust answers to all of my questions. But with an androgynous name, it did not occur to me that this person was in fact female. I had subconsciously assumed she was a man all along. I was dumbfounded at my own bias.
So I did some investigating.
A study reported in the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA)’s March 2022 Bulletin observed a tendency for females to report a poorer understanding and less confidence in their economic capabilities, even though they were likely to be more proficient than their male counterparts. [1] A similar tendency was found within students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Self perception is a major influence on a student’s choice to pursue further studies in Economics, or any discipline. A Hewlett Packard internal report observed the differences in job and promotion applications between men and women. The study found that on average, men applied when meeting 60% of the qualifications, but women only applied if they met 100% of them. [2] This is consistent with the RBA’s finding that women experience barriers, not through their ability, but through an attitude of unsuitability. It is against this gendered backdrop that I had formed assumptions about my classmate’s capability.
Why do women consistently underestimate their capabilities?
I propose two main reasons.
The first is that women have traditionally lacked female role models to encourage them to aspire to positions of leadership. People in positions of power tend to gravitate towards people in whom they see themselves. Without an existing network of female leaders, women cannot benefit from this intrinsic bond. It is a matter of commonsense that one’s aspirations are larger when they are given a platform to dream about them. Women have historically lacked this platform. According to the IMF, women are still significantly under-represented in financial leadership, with less than 20% of bank board seats and less than 2% of bank CEOs being female. [3] With female leaders as the historic exception rather than the norm, women lacked the solidarity in their aspirations to positions of power. This pattern is largely grounded in the weight of historic gender roles upon a woman’s lifestyle choices. Women were once conditioned to perceive their most honourable duty in motherhood; in nights spent sitting around the hearth, and playing with children. The expectation of a motherly presence weighs on the shoulders of women today, who fear social reprisal for favouring their careers.
The second reason that women underestimate their capability is gendered behavioural and linguistic tendencies which create a perception of low confidence. A woman’s self assessment may underestimate her capacity by comparison to her male counterparts. An RBA study cited evidence that women tend to make more conservative updates of their ability than men, in response to receiving praise. [4] This insight is noteworthy for managers in the workplace so that they may adjust their perception of employee competence independently of that employee’s verbal self assessment.
I will not venture so far as some critics to suggest that gendered linguistic habits are a result of the historic subordination of women in conversation with their male counterparts. However, it is apparent that these traits are born out of gendered social norms. Women tend to soften their behaviour when they are in the right; allowing others to save face. Women also tend to use the pronoun ‘we’ rather than ‘I’ when presenting their own work, out of concern to appear modest before their peers. Awareness of the feminine humility signals to individuals to recalibrate upwards, the contribution of their female colleagues and peers.
Awareness of gender bias is important, because the way one speaks largely determines ‘who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done.’ [5] Decision makers often resonate with the pitch that is presented by the fiery self-assured person. Where women downplay their certainty, men minimise their doubts. Women are more likely to use lexical hedges such as ‘you know’ and ‘sort of’, which snuff the persuasiveness of a proposal; leaving behind a haze of uncertainty. But sometimes a spark, with a little wind, can be kindled into an idea.
From the above tendencies, we see that linguistic patterns can create an illusion of confidence or weakness. The beauty of the analysis is that these traits are now raised in the consciousness of any reader, male or female, in the hope of overcoming gender bias. Furthermore, with skill and practice, these language patterns can be adopted (or avoided) in a business context.
Navigating confrontation with linguistics
With an aim to disrupt stereotypes of women’s speech, I present some scenarios with individuals named arbitrarily Person A and Person B. The context is an employee explaining to their boss that they did not find the requested document. They attempt to use language to put out their fire. This could be phrased in one of two ways. Person A says ‘I could not find the document in the system.’ Person B says, ‘The document is not in the system.’ The former explanation suggests doubt by the employee of their own abilities by attributing fault to themselves. The latter formulation allows the employee to assure their boss, by extinguishing uncertainty with a reliable fact.
Another discrepancy between the genders is their general approach to relationships. Relationships between women show a desire for solidarity and togetherness, whereas those between men tend to embody status and independence. But a lone ember cannot stoke a fire. It is the feminine tendency to diffuse confrontation that ignites quality leadership. One example concerns the use of gentle speech in delivering negative feedback. Person B assertively informs the employee that ‘you didn’t close the file correctly last night.’ However, Person A says ‘I don’t think the file was closed correctly last night.’ The removal of the subject from the sentence distances the issue from the person, allowing the speaker to be ‘hard on the issue, soft on the person.’ [6] A good leader may adopt such feedback style to correct mistakes while preserving the employee’s integrity. Tempered language to the rescue!
Conclusion
It is important that everyone, regardless of their gender, can appreciate and utilise the nuance of language to kindle their interpersonal relations. Employers may become aware of biases in their selection - and students can inform themselves of their own barriers to confidence. With a dictionary in hand, and a passion in our hearts, we can all set our ambitions ablaze.
[1] Joyce Tan, “Exploring the ‘Confidence Gap’” (Bulletin March 2022, Reserve Bank of Australia, 17 March 2022) (‘RBA Bulletin’).
[2] Jack Zenger, ‘The Confidence Gap In Men and Women: Why it Matters and How to Overcome it’ (2018) Forbes.
[3] Era Dabla-Norris and Lalpana Kochhar, ‘Closing the Gender Gap’ (2019) (March) IMF.
[4] RBA Bulletin (n 1).
[5] Deborah Tannen, ‘The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why’ (1995) (September-October) Harvard Business Review.
[6] Henry Cloud, Boundaries for Leaders: Results, Relationships, and Being Ridiculously in Charge (HarperCollins Publishers, 2013).
Written by Monique Zakis and edited by Anika Katyal