If you grew up in the business community during the 80’s and 90’s, like I did, you might have encountered women who had two fundamental philosophies about how to succeed in business. These philosophies essentially amounted to how women felt they needed to promote themselves and what they believed constituted their individual contributions to their organizations.

Interestingly, one philosophy revolved around professional women aspiring to look and behave like men. In essence this meant, removing, to the extent possible, any outward appearance of femininity even to the extreme of wearing their hair very short and shunning cosmetic products. Not to mention the intentional masking or denial of any semblance of “feminine” personality traits or attitudes. Showing emotion or being to ‘touchy feely’ was definitely considered career suicide.

The message to young business women seemed clear. Being female was fundamentally associated with weakness including an inability to act in an affective and rational manner. Therefore, the goal of women who adopted, or attempted to adopt, a male persona, were often aspiring to be accepted as just another ‘one of the guys’ rather than as a colleague with their own unique skills and abilities.

You might very well ask: If men can achieve success by acting in a certain manner, then why doesn’t acting in the same manner work for women? For me that question definitely falls into the Dah category. The answer is simple – women are not men. As the studies mentioned earlier in this series indicate, women excel in areas that differ from men. Imitating a man and denying who you are, in my estimation, only succeeds in diluting those qualities that bring powerful and unique contributions to our business communities.

In contrast to the first philosophy, the second philosophy involved the blatant exploitation of ones sexuality. If you have ever worked in a corporate environment [and even if you haven’t], you are likely to have encountered someone who you felt was embracing this philosophy. I think Julie Hilden nailed it pretty well in her article about the Blogger the “Washingtonienne” [www.writ.news.findlaw.com Tuesday June, 21 2005].

In Ms. Hilden’s article, she explains that when some women who are not afforded the power that appears to be obtainable by their male colleagues (in this article she is discussing the male dominated world of Washington DC) they often “[grab] for the power that [seems] most readily available to [them]: sexual power.” Ms. Hilden goes on to explain that “as much as this kind of power is touted, it’s not a very powerful kind of power, especially in the long run.”

Regardless of the prominence of these two strategies, neither strategy seemed (then or now) to be an appropriate way to promote ones self. In my experience, the women who indulged in these strategies never seemed to achieve the job satisfaction that they were striving for. In other words, these self promotion techniques often failed to provide the respect the women needed in order to advance in their careers. And in fact, it appeared over time to erode their credibility as legitimate business persons who possessed credible ideas and skills.

My observations appear to be supported by the study addressed in Sherrill Nixon’s article “Don’t want to be harassed? Stop acting like a man” [www.smh.com.au May 14, 2007]

In Ms. Nixon’s article, she focuses on a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology which indicates that “behaving like ‘one of the boys’ to get ahead at work may not be the best strategy for women.” The author of the study Dr. Berdahl is quoted as saying “The more women deviated from traditional gender roles – by occupying a ‘man’s’ job or having a ‘masculine’ personality – the more they were targeted [for harassment].” Further Dr. Berdahl states, “Although having a masculine personality would seem to help employees fit into male-dominated work environments, having such a personality appears to have hurt the women in this study.”

Conversely, the study also showed that “feminine” women also faced problems in male dominated environments. As stated by Dr. Berdahl, the results of the study “highlight[ed] the double bind faced by women who are dismissed and disrespected if feminine but scorned and disliked if masculine, limiting their ascent up the organizational ladder.”

So what can we learn from these studies? It certainly seems clear to me: Women who exploit their sexuality in what seems to be a misguided attempt to attain some level of power and success, do not achieve the recognition or respect that is necessary to become a flourishing business person. In addition, attempting to be ‘one of the boys’ invites ridicule and harassment and dilutes the skills that women should be capitalizing on.

So then…what are the answers to my original questions from Part I of this Series?

Check back and see.

© 2007 Stacie Clifford. All rights reserved

Certainly as professional service providers, we are promoting (on the surface anyway) what appears to be gender neutral skills. So what does that mean? It means that service providers such as CPA’s, attorneys, money managers etc. are selling the benefits of their education and experience. We are, as such, our own product and that product consists of our professional skills and reputation.

But does the above description of a service provider really encompass all of the skills a women brings to the (provider) table? Is it possible that a woman’s contribution is different from a man’s simply by virtue of the fact that she is a woman. And if so, what are those contributions and differences? Further, if we accept that differences exist, are those differences something that should be promoted and how?

In my attempt to reconcile these questions, I stumbled onto an article by Ronald Alsop titled “Men Do Numbers, Women Do Strategy” [CareerJournal.com September 21, 2005,]. In this article Mr. Alsop indicates that recruiters who responded to the Wall Street Journals Harris Interactive business-school survey acknowledged differences that they observed in male versus female M.B.A. recipients.

The recruiters indicated that the “men [were] perceived as forceful, if sometimes overly pushy leaders, as well as more adept in math.” However, the women tended to “interact more effectively with clients and colleagues and [excelled] in strategy and communications.”

Okay so now I’m intrigued. Based on the Harris survey, it would appear that women and men contribute in similar but also different ways. So naturally with my curiosity heightened, I wanted to explore other sources of information that could clarify these differences.

My quest for clarity uncovered the following study: “Critical Mass on Corporate Boards: Why Three or More Women Enhance Governance” published in 2006 by Kramer, V. W Konrad, A.M. Erkut S. [copies of the report can be ordered from the Wellesley Centers for Women’s Publications Office.] This study found the following interesting dynamics when women were brought into the board room.

Women, as the study reveals, tended to convey “a collaborative leadership style that benefits boardroom dynamics by increasing the amount of listening, social support and win-win problem solving. Although women are often collaborative leaders, they do not shy away from controversial issues.”

Many of the studies respondents “[believed] that women were more likely than men to ask tough questions and demand direct and detailed answers. Women also [brought] new issues and perspectives to the table, broadening the content of boardroom discussions to include the perspective of multiple stakeholders.”

Although the above study (and survey) highlight the contributions that women bring, I don’t think the results of either are surprising to the majority of today’s business women. The results certainly didn’t surprise me.

But what’s the bad news? There must be some study out there that shows something negative? So I diligently bombarded the internet with Google searches looking for something that would provide an apposing view. Not surprisingly, I didn’t find much. Lets face it. If that study does exist, its probably buried in some obscure antiquated archive due to its gender biased views.

However the studies that I did find definitely show that attitudes have changed over time.

Check back soon to read more about what I discovered.

© Copyright 2007 Stacie Clifford. All rights reserved