Women are undervalued at work (and it seems normal to us)

Surely you will know more than one case in which the meritorious actions of a person are not properly recognized. The opinions of people with much to say and contribute are systematically undervalued simply because of who they are.

Possibly, too, you will think these are exceptional cases that do not affect the vast majority of us: the victims of this discrimination are people who, despite be totally valid, or they are situated in an unusual context or they are themselves little normal. For example, it is not uncommon to witness paternalistic attitudes towards beggars or people from very different cultures that are strange to us.

In fact, we recommend that you read the article "Psychology of sexism: 5 macho ideas that are given today".

Women in companies: structural discrimination

However, this type of “bias according to the speaker” does not occur only in isolated cases: there is a variant of these that has been filtered down to the depths of our society and crosses like a gap the quality of the relationships that we maintain between U.S. And it is that,

Although we rationally know that the words spoken by men and women are worth the same, it cannot be said that we always act accordingly. At least within the scope of the organizations.

Gender bias

For a long time we have known the world of double standards that guide our way of perceiving both sexes attending to different gender biases: what is expected of a man is not the same as what is expected of a woman. To this list we have to add a new unjustified (and unjustifiable) comparative grievance that is incorporated into our way of perceiving the world. It seems that loquacity it is not a highly valued trait in women even when successful teamwork is at stake.

The psychologist Adam Grant he realized this while researching in work groups linked to the professional field. Male employees who contributed valuable ideas were rated significantly more positively by their superiors. What's more, the more the employee talked, the more useful he was in the superior's eyes. However, the same did not happen when the person to be evaluated was a woman: In their case, his contributions were not a more positive evaluation of their performance. Similarly, the fact that a woman spoke more was not matched by a better consideration of her role in the company.

Who says that?

The results of this research suggest that men and women do not receive the same recognition for what they say or propose. Although the good news is that those organizations in which there is communication have a significant flow of ideas, the bad news is that the perceived usefulness or futility of these ideas seems to depend in part on who says them.

With that in mind, men have good reasons for talking and proposing things (as their ideas will be taken into consideration at the time will give them a better reputation and possibilities of promotion), while in women this possibility is more blurred. Now, one thing is that there is a double yardstick in the gaze of the evaluator and another is that everyone, both the evaluator and the evaluated, accept that yardstick. Do we take the existence of this gender bias for granted?

It seems that it is, and to a great extent. In a study conducted by the psychologist Victoria L. Brescoll, a series of people of both sexes had to imagine their performance as members in a hypothetical company meeting. Some of these people were asked to imagine themselves as the most powerful member of the meeting, while others were asked to think of themselves as the lowest echelon of the hierarchy. under.

Outcome: the men in the shoes of the "boss" stated that they would speak more (measuring the degree to which they would speak on a scale), while women put in a situation of poweradjusted their speaking time to a level similar to that of their lower-ranking colleagues. In addition, to reinforce the line of research, in the first part of this same study it is realized how US senators with more power are not much different from female senators with a profile junior with regard to their speaking times, while the opposite occurs among senators. It seems that this fondness for "self-silencing" is also extended to women in the upper echelons of decision-making.

Another form of inequality

It is more or less clear that, in the case of women, the way of loquacity offers fewer possibilities to make valuable contributions. In this case we would be talking about the so-called opportunity cost: better not to waste time and effort talking when you can do other things that will be more beneficial for everyone.

However, Brescoll suspects that this apparent shyness of women may be due to fear of face social penalties for talking too much. Is it possible that, in fact, talking more not only does not add but also subtracts? Can a woman have a harder time being more talkative? It may seem like an unwarranted concern, and yet, if well-founded, the consequences could be very negative. To answer this question, Brescoll made one more section of his study.

The price of being talkative

In this last section of the research, 156 volunteers, including men and women, read a brief biographical profile on a senior position (CEO) who was presented as a man or a woman (John Morgan or Jennifer Morgan).

In addition to this slight variation, the content of the biography also differed in another respect: some of the profiles portrayed a relatively talkative person, while the other set of biographies dealt with a person who spoke less than normal. Being a study between subjects, each person read one and only one of the 4 types of biographical profiles (2 types of biographies according to the sex of the profile and 2 types of biographies according to how much or little the CEO speaks). After this, each of the 156 volunteers had to evaluate the profile I had read according to the ability of Mr. or Ms. Morgan to hold the position of CEO using rating scales from 0 to 7 points.

The results

The first fact that stands out is that the gender of the participants did not seem to play an important role when evaluating the profile that each of them had in front of them. The second fact to comment is that the fear of social sanction is justified: loquacity seems to be a frowned-on characteristic of the female sex, at least within the workplace and for the position of CEO or similar.

And, as Brescoll and his team discovered, the most talkative male CEOs were awarded 10% more scores, while this same trait, loquacity, was punished in female profiles. Specifically, the J. The most talkative Morgan received about 14% lower marks. Once again, it is worth underlining the fact that this was done by both men and women, and that it is a totally irrational bias that acts as ballast when arriving or staying in a position of more or less power and responsibility. This burden affects both the living conditions of women (a difficulty when it comes to growing economically) as well as the social relations that we maintain between ourselves and everything that derives from they.

In addition, this disadvantage has a pinch effect: theoretically, to thrive in organizations you have to contribute ideas to the community as a whole, and yet this need to give ideas also supposes an exhibition that can have its dangers. Women can be undervalued as much for not speaking as much as men as for doing so. Obviously, in addition, also the entire organization is harmed due to this dynamic of harmful relationships, although there is possibly a male elite that perpetuates itself more easily by having certain biological characteristics.

However, while it is true that this bias seems to be firmly established in our way of understanding the world, it is also true that it is totally unjustified. Brescoll speculates on the possibility that these results are explained by the gender roles assigned to positions of power: "powerful men must demonstrate their power, while women with power must not." That is, what keeps this bias alive are a few totally cultural forces and that, therefore, we have the possibility to change.

Beyond the rational

Ultimately, talking too much is a penalty that affects both women's chances of promotion and their appreciation by others. If this form of discrimination is something that is only present in formalized association systems (companies hierarchical, public positions, etc.) or transcends this area is something in which these studies have not reached deepen. However, sadly, It seems unrealistic to think that this bias only acts precisely in those areas where logic and efficiency should prevail the most. (in other words, where it is most problematic).

Both the fact that many potentially valuable contributions are rejected for being proposed by women and the existence of social sanction for women who "speak more than necessary" are examples of a sexism that has its roots in all areas of social and account the gender studies and many feminist theories. This is, in short, a sign that neither the business world is so independent from our informal relationships, nor is its operation as rational as it is customary to suppose.

Bibliographic references:

• Brescoll, V. L. (2012). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly. 56 (4), pp. 622 – 641. doi: 10.1177 / 0001839212439994

• Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the Boat but Keeping It Steady: The Role of Emotion Regulation in Employee Voice. Academy of Management. 56 (6), pp. 1703 – 1723. doi: 10.5465 / amj.2011.0035