Where's The Best Place To Be A Woman?

The Global Gender Gap Report (2013) is out if you want to check. Or there is a nice interactive graphic on the BBC World News site that summarizes the gender gap in five categories (health, economics, politics, education, and overall). You can scroll over countries to see the names and individual ranking.

The gender gap (overall average) is narrowest in the following ranked countries:

1. Iceland
2. Finland
3. Norway
4. Sweden
5. Philippines

6. Ireland
7. New Zealand
8. Denmark
9. Switzerland
10. Nicaragua

The UK, Canada, and the U.S. ranked 18th, 20th, and 23rd, respectively. Nordic countries made a near clean sweep of the top five. However, I don't think I'll be moving; just can't take the light deficit and cold.

Thanks to Chris S. for the link.

The Scientist Who Happens To Be a Woman

This month is Women's History Month, and last Friday was International Women's Day. Such celebrations are set to recognize and pay tribute to the contributions made by women throughout history. Many of those contributions were by women in science.

A growing number of women, however, are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with efforts to highlight women in science because such emphasis may lead to the conclusion that there is something unusual about female scientists or that we need "special help" to succeed (special awards, fellowships, grants).

The problem seems to be exacerbated by news stories in which the female gender of the story subject is emphasized over whatever it is she has accomplished. Articles about women scientists invariably talk about the fact that they are women (".....she's one of a handful of women to work on this topic.") and about family matters ("....she had to leave her three-year-old for a month to do field research in the Antarctic"). Some focus on special challenges they face as women in a male-dominated field ("....she had to accomplish twice that of her male colleagues to be acknowledged as competent").

I came across this post by Christie Aschwanden, who suggests the Finkbeiner Test for articles profiling women in science. It's similar to the Bechdel Test, which assesses gender bias in film, which I've described here previously. To pass the Finkbeiner Test, the article cannot mention any of the following:

• The fact that she’s a woman
• Her husband’s job
• Her child care arrangements
• How she nurtures her underlings
• How she was taken aback by the competitiveness in her field
• How she’s such a role model for other women
• How she’s the “first woman to…”

I agree that over emphasis on gender can backfire and send the wrong message. But I also understand the journalists' viewpoint in trying to make a technical topic more attractive to readers (especially female readers) by emphasizing gender and/or the unusual. To get people interested in reading about a topic, the journalist has to find a "hook", and anything unusual works well to attract readers. Look at the recent media buzz about Danica Patrick, the first female NASCAR driver to win the pole position in the Daytona 500 competition. Even though media attention is focused mostly on her gender, she's edged out male competitors to become the most popular NASCAR driver, especially among female fans of the sport. Her crew chief said that he's given out "more lugnuts to young girls this week than he's given to anyone in his career". 

I do wish that we could just write and read about the accomplishments of a scientist or race car driver who just happens to be a woman. But that's not going to happen as long as the subject's gender is seen as something unusual. Journalists can help things along by de-emphasizing gender in articles about female scientists (as Aschwanden and Finkbeiner suggest). As scientists, we can decline to provide answers to gender-based questions in interviews and refocus attention on the science. 

More Gender Bias Uncovered: Conference Symposia Organizers

Think about the last scientific conference you attended.  Did the speaker roster reflect the composition of your science society?  At a recent meeting I attended, several of us (women) were discussing the fact that there seemed to be a preponderance of male speakers, a proportion that did not reflect the gender makeup of our society.  When we pointed this out to the (mostly male) organizers, they basically pooh-poohed our concerns and waved their arms at all the female participants milling around (mostly grad students)....as if that addressed the point we were trying to make.

Turns out, there is now some evidence that the gender of session organizers has a significant influence on who ends up speaking in the more prestigious symposia sessions.

A recently published paper in PLOS One, "Stag Parties Linger: Continued Gender Bias in a Female-Rich Scientific Discipline", examined participation by women and men at conferences in a field in which women are in the numerical majority.  Based on an analysis of 21 annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, they found that in the subfield of primatology:

1. Women gave more posters than talks; men gave more talks than posters.

2. The proportion of female participants was lower in symposia organized by men (29%) compared to those organized by women only (64%) or by both men and women (58%).

They found the same pattern for 12 annual meetings of the American Society of Primatologists.

Primatology is a field that has had more female than male participants since the early 1970s and where women have achieved substantial peer and popular recognition for their achievements (Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey).  The results of this study suggest that even numerical dominance by females in a scientific field does not prevent gender bias. By looking at symposia participation, which is typically by invitation of the organizer, in relation to the gender of the organizer(s), the authors were able to say something about whether the underrepresentation by women at conferences might be due to lack of assertiveness by females or to bias.  Whereas posters and regular talks are self-motivated, the more prestigious symposia reflect a choice made by the organizer.  The results suggest that when men are the organizers, fewer women are invited to participate, but that men and women are equal participants in symposia organized by women (despite the larger numbers of women in the field).

Such bias may be unconscious on the part of the male symposia organizers.  I'm just guessing that this is the case as the authors have no data either way.  The authors of this paper, however, do state that they "cannot rule out" the possibility that male primatologists are more homophilic (homophily is preferential interaction with others who have similar attitudes, beliefs, or personal characteristics) than women.  The idea is that male symposia organizers have to spend more time interacting with their invitees, both before and after the symposium (e.g., to jointly prepare a conference proceedings) and simply prefer to work with other males.  Perhaps.  The jury is still out on that one.  But my guess is that this behavior is not restricted to male primatologists.

The finding that women gave more posters than talks and men the reverse is troubling and suggests the possibility that women are preferring the less visible presentation mode.  Although the study indicated that men were 12% more likely to request an oral talk over poster than women, which might explain the gender difference, the authors suggest that there still might be some bias occurring at the presentation selection/assignment stage (by the conference organizers).  Their data were pretty weak on this point, however.

In any case, this is yet another example of why it is important for women to be assertive in promoting themselves and their science.  We may need to encourage female students to give oral presentations. As for bias in inviting speakers, one solution is for more women to organize conference symposia and ensure that women are well represented in the speaker lineup.

Is My Lipstick Smeared?

In episode 11 of the 4th season of the television series, Mad Men, Peggy gives a presentation to Playtex executives.  Before she gets to the conference room, one of her male colleagues (she had earlier rebuffed) notices that her lipstick is smeared on her teeth.  He doesn't warn her.  She gives her presentation, failing to notice that people are trying to alert her to the lipstick problem.  Later, someone breaks the news to her.  Her colleague just smiles.

If you are unfamiliar with this TV series, it is set in the 1960's New York and focuses on an advertising agency. Although the show revolves around Don Draper (the main ad man), there are lots of episodes and scenes that deal with women working in a male-dominated world.

I was reminded of this show and the scene described above during a conversation with a colleague.

I was talking with this male colleague about a women-in-science group that I sometimes attend.  He inquired about what we were discussing this semester, and I mentioned that one topic I hoped to address was leadership styles.  He soon began talking about several university administrators who happened to be women and mentioned something that he observed one of them doing at meetings.  Apparently, this woman would walk into the conference room, sit down, open her purse, and begin to carefully apply lipstick. When finished with her makeup, she would call the meeting to order. 

My initial response was something along the lines of, "Hmmm. That's interesting.  I wonder why she did that?  Most women would apply lipstick (those who wear it) in private." We were interrupted by the arrival of some other people, so I did not have a chance to question this colleague further about why he mentioned this particular example during a discussion of women in leadership positions.

I later thought more carefully about this conversation...not about why a woman in a high position would call attention to the fact that she was a woman by conspicuously applying makeup (I suspect she was oblivious to how this looked to others), but how my colleague interpreted this behavior.  

One might dismiss the lipstick observation as an offhand, unimportant remark.  However, it clearly made an impression on this colleague, who was obviously critical of this woman and offered this up as an example of her poor judgement.  It reminded me of critical comments made about a woman's physical appearance or other attributes that have no bearing on their professional capabilities. 

This colleague is married to a professional woman who is very successful and highly regarded.  Consequently, I figured that he was making a statement about how women need to be careful (in dress and behavior) to avoid calling negative attention to their gender in professional settings.  Perhaps he was leading up to a suggestion that our discussion group counsel the younger members about inappropriate behavior?  Or maybe he did think that this woman's lipstick habit indicated an overall incompetence in chairing meetings? I'm not sure.

Women can call attention to their gender unintentionally, especially when nervous.  Some women play with their hair or jewelry, which is acceptable in a social setting, but might send unintended signals in a professional setting.  Men seem to be particularly alert (consciously or subconsciously) to sexual signals.  Lipstick, which has an interesting history by the way, is a sexual signal (although its sexual connotations are not always recognized).  I think this is why my colleague noticed it, but I doubt that he realized why it was so memorable.  I also doubt that the female administrator was aware of this either (and would probably be mortified if someone pointed it out to her).

I know that some women dismiss such concerns about dress and behavior, saying that they should be judged on their professional capabilities rather than their wardrobe or personal quirks. However, the fact that this senior male faculty member had noticed the lipstick application, remembered it years later, and pointed it out to me (in the context of women in leadership positions) suggests that women are still being judged inappropriately, even by men who are generally supportive of women.

Photo Credit: AMC, Mad Men, still image of Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss)

To Each Her Chimera

We are talking about leadership style choices for women.  More specifically, I'm considering leadership qualities that are more consistent with the feminine stereotype (nurturing, cooperative, modest) versus the male stereotype (assertive, dominant, outspoken).  In previous posts, I've examined the two extremes: Leading from the Heart (traditional female qualities) and Command and Control (traditional male qualities).  In this post, I look at a leadership style that combines both traditionally masculine with feminine qualities: the Chimera.

By definition, a chimera is a composite creature, sometimes having disparate parts (lion's head, goat's body) or composed of genetically distinct tissues.  I've stretched the definition somewhat to describe the female (or male) leader who displays both traditionally female and traditionally male behaviors. One might argue that it's an inappropriate choice, since chimeras are typically viewed as being grotesque creatures that don't fit in.  I'm taking a different view...one in which such a composite combines the best qualities from two disparate sources and creates a new whole that works well.

This woman has adopted a mixture of strong leadership qualities that are stereotypically male, while retaining some communal qualities.  By being assertive, ambitious, and outspoken, she sends the message that she's capable of going toe-to-toe with the boys.  However, having a few communal qualities (cooperative, nurturing) will show her to be in synch with her traditional gender role.  Many successful female leaders fall into this category.  As I noted above, however, this approach does not always  put a woman on equal footing with a man whose natural gender-based tendencies are congruent with strong leadership qualities.

There is also another set of leadership styles, often referred to as transactional vs. transformational.  The transformational leader sets high standards of behavior and establishes herself as a role model by gaining the trust and confidence of her team.  She frequently discusses past achievements with her subordinates and offers new ideas for achieving even higher goals.  This type of leader mentors subordinates and encourages them to advance to the point that they outgrow their current position and move on to a higher level position elsewhere. This leader often retains strong ties with these mentees, eventually becoming colleagues and developing long-term working relationships.  The transactional leader, by contrast, manages subordinates by setting up defined responsibilities, monitoring their work, and using a reward/punishment approach to make corrections. 

A woman who exhibits the transformational type of leadership behavior might be much more successful at being perceived as a strong leader, compared to the transactional approach. This would be true, of course, for men as well.  However, it might be an added quality that helps a woman overcome the disadvantages of the gender-leader inconsistency.  Research suggests that women, more than men, adopt aspects of the transformational style, including: 1) motivating their followers to feel respect and pride in being associated with them, 2) exhibiting excitement and optimism about future goals, and 3) mentoring.  Perhaps women can use these in place of aggressive or competitive behavior to demonstrate strong leadership.

Well, there you have it.  The topic of leadership styles is obviously complex, and I've only skimmed the surface.  However, the material I've covered has helped me to better understand what the issues are for women in selecting a leadership style and some of the options that might work better than others.  Every person's situation is different, so that the choice of leadership style must be tailored to the particular circumstances.  This point also means that a leader must be prepared to change styles as conditions change.  Moving to a new job, transitioning through career stages, or interacting with different groups of people all require periodic reassessment of leadership modes.  Those leaders who insist on using the same style no matter what will likely run into trouble at some point.

If you are in a leadership position and are having difficulties, it might be beneficial to reassess your leadership behavior.  If you are a woman, it is especially important to determine what your organizational expectations are for its leaders and how gender roles are viewed in your workplace.  This is where female role models may be especially important.  Those women who have successfully established themselves as leaders in their fields will have adopted those specific behaviors that work.  By observing them and how they lead will be invaluable to younger women struggling to develop their own styles.

Command and Control

I'm discussing three leadership options for women.  In the last post, I described a leader who exhibits traditionally female qualities (nurturing, cooperative): Leading from the Heart.  In this post, I will consider a leader who has for the most part adopted (or naturally has) masculine characteristics congruent with strong leadership (assertive, competitive, aggressive, etc.): Command and Control. 

I know several women, both in academic and non-academic settings, who favor this style.  Although they are successful in the science profession and may be strong leaders, they are not always viewed in a completely positive light.  Some of them seem to have difficulties gaining the respect of subordinates, peers, and/or superiors.  According to experts, the problem may lie in the inconsistency between gender role expectations and leadership expectations.  A woman who is assertive and outspoken may be seen as presumptuous and over-confident.  If she has mostly discarded all feminine features, she is especially criticized for having violated her gender role and is seen as a flawed person, regardless of how successful she is professionally.  Although this probably explains some of the reactions to such women, I'm not so sure this is the whole story.

I’ve particularly intrigued as to why such women are frequently challenged (or disrespected) by subordinates (male and female).  I don’t have enough in-depth information to be certain, but I can speculate about some possibilities. I suspect that a woman who is assertive, aggressive, and competitive, but whose work is not of the highest quality (evidenced, for example, by publishing in low-tier journals or not bringing in large grants) would be viewed as having an over-inflated ego.  The same might be true of a young female who has not yet established a strong professional status, but behaves as if she has.  The fact that she is acting in a contra-gender fashion might add further to the negative perception.  (A man, by contrast, might not be downgraded as much for having an over-inflated ego).

In decision-making, a leader may behave democratically and allow subordinates to express opinions or make decisions autocratically and discourage any input from subordinates.  If a woman is highly regarded by peers and successful, then behaving autocratically would seem to be justified (to a degree, but not as much as for a male).  On the other hand, a woman who is perceived as having a too-high opinion of herself would have special difficulties with subordinates.  If she’s not that successful and also ignores her subordinates’ input by being autocratic, then she will likely not be seen as a capable leader.  Eventually, her demands are seen as irritating and repressive, and subordinates begin to rebel, challenging her decisions... at first behind her back, then face-to-face.
An autocratic approach could also sully interactions with peers--other scientists.  In joint projects as PI, she might insist on making all the decisions and not invite co-PIs to participate (or veto their opinions, if they do not coincide with hers).  You can imagine how well this would go over with her colleagues. I've seen this situation on several occasions involving lead PIs who were female.  They treat co-PIs the same way they treat their staff:  assigning tasks, monitoring their work, and excluding them from the decision-making process even though they may have co-designed the project and are responsible for a major aspect of it.  I suspect that such women either think this behavior is expected of them as a leader or they are over-compensating for low self-esteem.

In any case, adopting the Command and Control style of leadership can be problematic for a woman, especially in interactions with colleagues.  Perhaps a senior woman who has reached the top of her profession might successfully implement this style of leadership, but I would expect that even she would experience some resistance. 

Leading from the Heart

In the last post, I promised to muse about the different leadership choices women may make.

Women more often exhibit communal qualities (nurturing, cooperative, supportive) and are generally concerned with the welfare of others.  Men more often exhibit agentic qualities (assertive, aggressive, confident, attention-seeking), characteristics traditionally ascribed to a strong leader.  A woman seeking a leadership style may behave in a mostly feminine fashion (Leading from the Heart), in a masculine manner (Command and Control), or in a mixed style (Chimera).  

In the following posts, I will try to explore a bit more deeply each of these options, looking at why they work or don't work well for women.  In this post, I take a closer look at the leader who exhibits mostly traditionally female qualities.  This person may be male or female, but the female will be behaving in a manner consistent with the feminine stereotype.

This leader is concerned with the welfare of subordinates and may exhibit few qualities expected in a strong leader.  She may be timid, backs down when challenged, is tentative rather than confident (in stating an opinion or giving orders), is usually soft-spoken, rarely speaks up in meetings, and is more happy being in the background.  On the other hand, she is empathetic, concerned, honest, collaborative, encouraging, and supportive--attributes that make her good at team-building and mentoring. Such a woman may struggle with her leadership role, especially if she finds herself in an organization that favors the Command and Control type of leader and/or where there are few other leaders like her.

However, there is a growing recognition that the take-charge, autocratic type of leader is not compatible with the 21st century world where people from diverse backgrounds have to work together and where complex problems require teams of people who can all contribute creative ideas.  The networking skills of the female leader may prove to be an asset in the future, rather than a liability.  A woman in science, especially in academia, also will be training or mentoring others, which requires many communal qualities.  A female scientist in a non-academic setting will likely have a staff  who look to her for encouragement, vision, and emotional support.

I can think of several women who fall into this category.  Not surprisingly, in many science settings such women still are not generally viewed as leadership material and are undervalued.  Will this change in the future, as networking and other communal skills become more appreciated or in demand? Is this a viable choice for a woman in science now?  Is this style more likely to be successful in academia compared to other settings?  I don't have answers to these questions, but I do think that this style might work for some women in some circumstances.

In the next post, I consider the Command and Control style of leadership.  

She's Too Bossy!

Imagine the following scenario:

Jane is a PI at a research laboratory and has been asked by the lab director to be team leader for a new, high-profile project.  The other team members are mostly male, some of whom have served as team leaders for previous projects.  Jane has never been selected before, but was tapped in this case because she is the acknowledged expert on the topic of this new project.  Jane is very excited about this new challenge and dives right in, setting up meetings and organizing plans for tackling the project. 

She wants to show that she's a capable leader by taking charge and being decisive.  In the first meeting with her team, she lays out her plan for the project, assigning different members to tasks based on their respective areas of expertise. As she is going through her plan, she notices several people frowning and others who are making inaudible, but clearly critical comments to their neighbors. When she finishes, no one says anything...they just sit and stare.  The atmosphere in the room is definitely hostile.  Later, Jane learns that her team members have complained to the director that she is too "bossy" and "dictatorial".  Jane is mystified by this reaction because on other projects male team leaders typically set forth the overall plan and assigned roles in exactly the same way she did.

What happened to Jane in this hypothetical scenario is not uncommon.  Women who display traits normally associated with strong leaders (assertive, independent, dominant, out-spoken) are criticized as being "bossy" or, worse, the other "b word".  In contrast, if a woman behaves in a more feminine way (soft-spoken, hesitant, nurturing), she is judged to be a poor leader.  A recent paper Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms explores the classic no-win situation that women leaders may experience.  This work is summarized in The Glass Hammer, a website for women executives.

The problem lies in the inconsistent expectations for leaders and for feminine behavior.  Leaders are expected to behave in a dominant fashion, be assertive and outspoken--characteristics that are consistent with stereotypical male behavior.  A man behaving like a leader is more readily accepted.  However, a woman who displays normal leadership qualities is viewed as being presumptuous; her behavior clashes with the feminine stereotype.  This Catch-22 situation is sometimes referred to as the Double Bind.

These leadership stereotypes work against women, sometimes in a subtle way, but can have a definite effect on a woman's career.  If an assertive, outspoken woman is passed over for a job or promotion because she's judged to be "overbearing", while a man with the same characteristics is hired, this is discrimination. Similarly, if a woman is seen as being less qualified for a leadership position because she's "too nice" and is not selected on this basis, this too is discrimination.  The key here is that a decision is made based on gender stereotypes, not on actual capabilities.  The fact that such an action would be considered discriminatory and illegal would probably come as a surprise to some people who hold such beliefs (e.g., based on traditional social values or religious beliefs).  They may view women (and some men) with predominately communal attributes (cooperative, nurturing, caring) as being incapable of being strong leaders.  However, anyone who makes hiring or promotion decisions based on such reasoning may find themselves in very hot water.

Not all women in science have problems in terms of leadership.  For some, their leadership style may coincide with the expectations of the organization.  In academic settings, communal behaviors are compatible with teaching and training, so that women may safely display such characteristics without detracting from their overall role as a leader.  However, in other science jobs, mostly involving research and other competitive endeavors, there may be a greater expectation for a leader to be more aggressive, forceful, confident, and outspoken.  It is in this setting that the organizational expectations for leader behavior and female behavior are major determinants of a woman's experience...and, ultimately, her career success.  If the expectation in the organization is for the Command and Control type of leader and a woman's natural inclination is to be something else, there will be problems.  Some men may also run into this conundrum and have similar difficulties being viewed as capable leaders.

A woman (or man) who is unaware of leadership pitfalls may fall prey to such biases.  She may think that her problems with subordinates or superiors or her failure to advance in the organization are her fault.  She may begin to question her capabilities, which leads to a loss of confidence and a downward spiral effect on her overall performance.  By itself, leadership difficulties may not be overwhelming, but may tip the balance along with the added pressures to publish, bring in high-profile grants, and balance family and work.  This is what I suspect contributes to the "leaky pipeline".  I also think that subtle disadvantages for women and advantages for men compound over time, leading to greater disparity at each career transition.  Women in STEM fields see others (men) who do not have to work as hard and/or seem not to have the same difficulties.  The failure to meet expectations has an increasingly greater impact as a woman advances from student to professional. This is extremely discouraging.

When women are given opportunities to perform in a leadership role, they may find the position difficult or they may even completely fail...and never recognize why.  Superiors, co-workers, and subordinates may unknowingly contribute to such failures because of their biases.  Some women eventually decide they are just not cut out to be a scientist or engineer and quit.

The disadvantages from various sources accumulate over a career, until a breaking point is reached.  Leadership bias is only one of several potential ways a woman may be disadvantaged.  However, it's interesting that leadership skills increase in importance with each step up the career ladder from student to post-doc to assistant professor/junior scientist to tenured professor/senior scientist and beyond.  Lacking any formal leadership training (and the natural acceptance afforded men in leadership roles), a woman is at a huge disadvantage.  Without leadership skills (or savvy about avoiding gender-leader inconsistencies), a woman may become increasingly disadvantaged as she is faced with more and more leadership responsibilities at each career transition. 

So, what can women do?  One obvious answer is to be aware of leadership pitfalls and how inconsistencies between organizational expectations and gender roles may arise.  Developing good leadership skills is also important.  But what leadership styles work for women and why?  In the next post, I consider three options women have to choose from in a leadership role.

Gender and Leadership Styles

Before I delve into leadership styles for women, we first need to understand a bit about how both our gender and our workplace influence not only our choice of behavior, but whether it's effective or not.

It’s difficult to determine the impact of gender on leadership behavior, in part because of the simultaneous effect of gender roles and organizational roles.  Even though we may strive to perform in a genderless manner, we cannot escape the fact of our sex and its effect on our behavior as well as on others' expectations of us.  Men and women who achieve leadership status in an organization may behave similarly because of norms regulating the performance of tasks in that role.  A PI, for example, will prepare grant proposals, develop and carry out research, hire and supervise a staff, write and publish papers…all activities required to be successful in this role and that are essentially genderless.  However, there is always leeway in how these activities are carried out. A PI may be friendly or reclusive, ask colleagues for advice or not, be aggressive or timid, be autocratic or democratic in making decisions, work alongside staff or have distinctly separate activities.  Exactly how someone carries out various tasks may be influenced by gender, either due to their own gender-related tendencies or to organizational expectations of their performance in that position.

Characteristics relevant to leadership that are more often ascribed to men are termed agentic:  assertive, controlling, ambitious, dominant, independent, daring, self-confident, competitive.  A leader must speak and act confidently, capture and hold the attention of others, generate a viable plan of action (and vision), and motivate subordinates to carry out tasks.  In contrast, characteristics more often associated with women are communal in nature: sensitive, sympathetic, kind, warm, affectionate, nurturing, and modest.  Behaviors arising from such characteristics might be: being a good listener, supporting others, expressing concern for others’ welfare, being cooperative, avoiding attention, speaking softly or tentatively.  These features are counter to what is traditionally expected in a leader, but are not entirely without merit in that role.  For example, some effective leaders are good at “reading” other people, especially body language.  

I am talking here about general qualities and perceptions related to gender; there are obviously exceptions, with men having communal qualities and women with agentic qualities. 

We can see how a female, in attempting to meld her naturally communal qualities with those qualities associated with a leader, would develop a somewhat different leadership style than a male whose natural inclinations already coincided with strong leadership qualities.  A female who is naturally assertive, out-spoken, and competitive would perhaps develop a leadership style more like that of a male with similar tendencies.  We could also envision a male with communal qualities becoming a leader with a mixture of qualities more like the first female.

Problems arise mostly because of other people’s expectations: their beliefs are upheld with men in the role of leader, but not with women. This is partly due to traditional views of the female gender role, which is seen as inconsistent with the leadership role.  Here’s where the Double-Bind comes in.  There is often prejudice against female leaders, because leadership abilities are more stereotypic of men. However females who exhibit strong leadership qualities are also viewed less favorably because their behavior is counter to what is expected of the female gender.  We can't win.

It’s easy to see, then, that a woman who behaves in a stereotypically female fashion will not be viewed as an effective leader, whereas a woman who exhibits mostly male-stereotypical qualities (assertive, competitive, etc.) will also be viewed as a flawed leader (or at least not readily accepted).  Research shows that women who adopt a very authoritative and directive leadership style often encounter resistance, whereas men with exactly the same qualities are gauged to be highly competent leaders.  Some women try to take charge in a very authoritative fashion, in an attempt to show they are strong leaders, but this approach backfires for them.

There is thus the possibility that a woman who exhibits the strong qualities of a leader, but also shows some communal behaviors (warm, cooperative, nurturing), will have better success.  However, she will still be at a disadvantage because her supportive behaviors may be interpreted as weaknesses (in a leader).  However, this may depend on specifics of which leadership features are adopted (e.g., autocratic vs. democratic) in combination with the communal qualities she exhibits....and what the organizational expectations are.

Do I know women who exhibit these different styles of behavior, either in leadership positions or who are potential leaders?  Yes, I can think of examples for all of these.  See the next post for more on this topic.

Are Female Scientists An Endangered Species?

An article recently asked this question based on the observation that fewer than 10% of UK professors are female.  The problem posed is the familiar one of retention of women in science after graduation, rather than engagement of girls at earlier stages.  Statistics quoted for the UK are similar to those in the US: around half of science students are female (even higher for biology).  So, there seems to be less of a problem attracting young females to science.  After graduation, however, the numbers shrink as women, facing the realities of balancing a career in a highly competitive field with family obligations and other interests, begin to drop out.  The article goes on to discuss what might be done to help women stay in science.

Viewing women in science as endangered is an interesting way to look for solutions.  Using the endangered species model as a guide, we can immediately focus on the habitat as a critical factor in species survival.  Just as an endangered plant or animal requires certain environmental conditions to maintain a healthy population, women in science also require a supportive environment to not only survive, but to thrive.  For example: sufficient resources and space (habitat) as well as ways to support recruitment and minimize losses are necessary to have a viable population.  From an individual's standpoint, it means everything one needs to compete with others successfully.  It's not a perfect analogy, but perhaps useful to ponder how one's work environment, especially support from superiors, staff, and colleagues, can be a major factor in whether a woman chooses to remain in her career or drop out. 

Just the other day, I was talking with another member of a Women in Science group at a university where I am an adjunct.  I've been attending the meetings of this group off and on for over a year and providing some insights about being a woman in science, basically saying that there will be bumps in the road, but it gets better if you stick it out.  One or two other senior female faculty had also been attending and providing the same type of message, in various ways.  This was not a planned strategy on our part...it just came across that way. 

I had been wondering if the students and postdocs who belonged to this group were getting anything out of our meetings (I had never really gotten any direct feedback from them, positive or negative). Anyway, she had been talking to one of the students who belonged to the group and who had told her that these meetings had greatly influenced her.  The student had been having some problems and was thinking that she was not cut out for a career in science.  Hearing from some senior female scientists and seeing how we had succeeded convinced her to persevere.  It seemed that hearing stories about what issues we had faced and how we dealt with them essentially sent the message that they were not alone in their experience, i.e., it was normal to occasionally feel inadequate or uncertain about a science career, but it would pass.

It's important to have a support group, whether you are having problems or not.  Perhaps you are supremely confident in your capabilities and are sailing through your graduate program or postdoc training.  However, you never know what might change tomorrow to throw a wrench into your plans.  I find that those students who have rarely (or never) faced real difficulties are the least prepared to deal with a major setback. They are so accustomed to things always going their way, that they are left confused and shaken when things go wrong.  Instead, those who have had to work hard expect difficulties and usually have developed good coping mechanisms and especially a support network. 

Having a support group can be a life saver in such instances.  I didn't, and struggled to maintain my confidence and to see my way forward when those obstacles occurred.  Even my spouse (a science professor), who provided emotional support, really didn't understand from his perspective as a male in a male-dominated field.  Consequently, much of his encouragement missed the mark.  He really could not grasp what it is like to be marginalized or even actively discouraged by superiors and coworkers.  He was always accepted as rightfully belonging to the science club, assumed to be competent (or had the potential), expected to be ambitious and to advance up the career ladder.  He's never really understood what it was like not to have that kind of underpinning. 

I'm convinced that it takes someone who has had similar experiences to provide you with the right kind of support or encouragement.  Peers (male or female), who are not experiencing problems, may even be dismissive or critical of you, believing that the fault lies in your inability to deal with everyday issues (or even that your behavior is the source of the problem).  This attitude, whether voiced or not, can be extremely damaging...perhaps more so than the problem itself. 

Anyone who is facing a problem, especially one that shakes an individual's confidence, needs reassurance that they can overcome it.  Yes, in some cases, the victim is part of the problem and needs to do some serious reassessment of their interpersonal dealings.  But the way to help them (if you are their friend) is to assure them that others have had this same problem, but succeeded in dealing with it....by doing x, y, or z. Hearing a true story from someone who lived through it is a safe way to get the message across without blatantly blaming the victim, which will only make them more defensive. 

In recounting such a story, a veteran might say, "I didn't realize initially how I was viewed by colleagues, but once I did, it seemed obvious that they would continue treating me badly as long as I continued my behavior.  I finally realized that they had no incentive to change, but I did. Once I modified how I (fill in the blank), their attitude toward me began to change." 

Stories are excellent ways to teach others.  They convey real (or sometimes imagined) situations and describe how the heroine overcomes obstacles and goes on to a successful career in science.  Perhaps we need more of such stories, including the emotional and gritty details, to help prepare those starting out to expect and conquer impediments....and eventually, women in science will be taken off the endangered species list.

Mommy Wars

The fourth and final type of gender bias is known as "Gender Wars" in which women find themselves in conflict with other women....either directly or indirectly...regarding how to behave as a scientist or in life/work balance choices. 

Possibly the most common conflict is related to philosophical differences.  Those women who have chosen to "fit in" with their male colleagues have adopted masculine ways of thinking and working (ambitious, long hours, etc.) and may have foregone a family to ensure career success.  Many women of my generation have invested a tremendous amount of time and effort and made sacrifices to gain recognition for ourselves and for female scientists as a group.  We've succeeded during a period when we were actively discouraged from seeking careers in science, engineering, and math...mainly by sticking to a rigorous and professional work ethic.  We had to work many times harder (and smarter) than male counterparts to gain grudging acceptance by our peers and to be considered by superiors for positions mostly held by men.

Things are different now.  It's not unusual for a woman to hold a professorial or other high-level science position, and in many countries there are laws preventing outright discrimination.  Gender bias is still there, but is not as blatant as it once was.  However, women who had to work hard to gain a foothold in science are often critical of other women who are choosing more "feminine" approaches to science, i.e., not adopting the traditional male work ethic, putting family before career, or just working fewer hours.  Younger women who choose a different path (from that of my generation) are often shocked and upset when an older female mentor is critical of their choices.  Those choices may involve having children or not (or when to have children), spending more leisure time with family or in non-science pursuits, or selecting alternative career paths in science (as opposed to the academic or research path).

This can be a touchy subject, but one that needs to be explored so that we (women in science) do not end up hurting the progress we've made over the past decades.  I've often had conversations with female colleagues (as well as male) about the apparent change in work ethic and sense of entitlement adopted by those now entering science fields (I'm talking about general trends; specifics vary from place to place and with the individual, of course)  We worry about how this change will affect the success rate of women in science, if for example, long hours and high productivity are expected to gain tenure or permanent status in some workplaces, and a woman decides she doesn't have to meet this expectation.  In the past, men had better options than women in terms of balancing work and family; they still have an advantage over women, on whom childcare and housework more often fall.  The bias we've been discussing in this series may also come into play if a woman takes time off to have a baby, stops the tenure clock, or decides to work part-time for a period.  She may be judged to be less serious about a science career than male colleagues.

This concern usually comes to a head when a young female scientist decides to start a family and seeks advice or encouragement from an older, established female. In many universities and science organizations, a high percentage of female scientists are childless (and also unmarried). This is the case where I work.  Some of these women are highly critical of younger female scientists who decide to have a family at an early stage in their career.  The reasons for this reaction are varied and not always rational ("I gave up having a family to have a career, so why shouldn't they?").  Others are concerned that women who ask for special treatment (e.g., stopping the tenure clock) will promote the stereotype that women can't succeed in science unless they are "helped".

These so-called "mommy wars" are harmful and unnecessary.  The decision to have children is highly personal, and what worked for you may not work for someone else.  My response to a request for advice from a young scientist would be to mainly ask questions to help them clarify what they really want and what is possible, given their circumstances.  My only advice for a woman who wishes to maintain a career in science and to have children is to choose your spouse very carefully.  Even if you don't have children, having a supportive spouse can make all the difference when you encounter obstacles during your career.  That is certainly what sustained me (in addition to my drive, persistence, and self-confidence, of course!).

The Gender Bias Learning Project describes all four patterns of bias that I've covered in this series, and there are videos that illustrate each type of bias.

How to Respond to a Verbal Attack Involving Gender Bias

In the last post, I provided two hypothetical scenarios illustrating a type of gender bias known as The Maternal Wall.  In both cases, the perpetrator (of bias) used a "verbal attack" to express criticism of the target or victim of bias.  I've previously discussed how to recognize and defend yourself against "verbal attacks".  So I thought it would be worthwhile to take each of these examples and show how one might handle such situations.

In the first hypothetical example, Joan has a problem with her department chair who assumes that when she is not in her office, it is because she is taking care of family business.  In the interaction I described, her boss asked if her kids were sick, because he had not seen her all week. In reality, Joan was attending a conference, which the chair knew about beforehand.  Apparently, the chair is in the habit of making such statements to Joan.  Such interactions are known as verbal attacks (you know you are the victim of one when your gut tightens and you feel defensive).  In this example, however, the verbal attack involves gender bias (against an employee who is a mother).

There is a very effective method for dealing with verbal attacks, which I will apply to this example.  Verbal attacks contain two parts: the "bait", which is the obvious attack, and the presupposition, which is the less obvious attack.  In Joan's case, the bait is the charge that she was out of the office because her kids were sick.  The presupposition, however, is that Joan is not doing her job.

The best response to a verbal attack is to ignore the "bait" and respond only to the presupposition.  Here is a revised version of Joan's conversation with her chair:

Ben asks,  “Joan, are your kids sick?  I haven’t seen you the past few days.”  

Joan calmly replies, “Ben, when did you start thinking that I was not doing my job?

Startled, Ben says, “What? I didn't say you weren't doing your job!"

Joan says, "Well, I'm often out of my office for various work-related activities, such as teaching my classes, attending conferences, and doing my fieldwork....as are all the other professors in the department.  Yet, I seem to be the only one you assume is out of the office for personal reasons.  Why is that?"

Ben, now completely flummoxed, replies, "Uh, Ahh.  That's not what I think....uhhh....I'm sure you are doing your job...." [clears throat and begins looking around for the nearest exit]

There might be other ways for Joan to respond, but the point is not to fall for the bait and instead directly address the underlying attack.  The attacker is usually so accustomed to getting a defensive answer that s/he will be discombobulated, at least momentarily.  Let's assume, however, that Ben quickly recovers and continues his plan of attack:  

Recovering his composure, Ben says, "Actually, what I wanted to ask you about was whether you could pick up our seminar speaker at the airport at 5 pm this evening?” 

Joan has plans to attend her son's softball game after school.  She replies, with a hint of censure, "I have a previous commitment at that time.  If you had given me more notice, I might have been able to work it into my schedule.  Isn't this a bit late to be organizing the speaker's schedule?" 

Ben frowns and replies, “Uhh, well, actually....I do have a schedule, but Joe, who was supposed to pick up the speaker, has a family emergency and can't do it.  I guess I'll have to instead."

So in this example, Joan has completely turned the tables on Ben and put him on the defensive.  She has also managed to extract the real story from Ben regarding why he's asking her at the last minute to pick up the seminar speaker.  Interestingly, Joe has had to cancel because of family obligations, information that drives home the point that it's not only Joan who has a family.

Contrast this with the original reaction of Joan in which she went for the bait and set herself up for the additional "test" of her devotion to her job.  You can see how the latter reaction would confirm Ben's biased thinking about Joan and encourage continued verbal attacks (i.e., Joan's defensive reaction to such attacks actually invites further attacks).  By not going for the bait and directly addressing the presupposition, however, Joan has short-circuited Ben's specific attack, which will likely make him think twice about trying it in the future.  A commenter yesterday recognized the mistake that Joan made in explaining that she couldn't pick up the seminar speaker because she had promised to go to her son's game.  That response just reinforced the chair's bias toward her.

In the second scenario, Mike, a new father, is being teased by coworkers about taking family leave to care for a newborn.  His responses to the gender bias and verbal attack were better than Joan's, but perhaps we can improve upon it.  See if you can identify the "bait" and then come up with an alternative response that directly addresses the underlying presupposition.  I'll follow up in the next post. 

Hitting the Wall

Consider the following scenarios:

1.  Joan is on her way to teach her class and runs into her department chair, Ben, who says, “Joan, are your kids sick?  I haven’t seen you the past few days.” 

Startled, Joan replies, “No!  I was attending a conference and presenting a paper on my research….remember?

Ben says, “Oh, yes.  I just forgot.  Actually, what I wanted to ask you about was whether you could pick up our seminar speaker at the airport at 5 pm this evening?”

Joan hesitantly says, “Oh, I can’t.  I had promised to be at my son’s game after school.  Perhaps if you had given me more notice…..”

Ben frowns and replies, “Well, I guess I’ll have to do it then.  I can see that your family takes precedence.”

Later, Joan confides to one of her coworkers, “He always does that to me…he assumes that I’m not working if I’m not in the office.  When I provide a reasonable explanation for my absence, he then “tests” me by asking me to do something that he knows will interfere with my personal responsibilities.”

2.     Mike is a new father and has applied for family leave to help his wife care for their newborn.  He walks into the coffee break room and sees several of the other faculty members sitting around the conference table.

Robert, a somewhat conservative fellow, says, “Hey, Mike.  I hear you’re getting some kind of special “mommy leave” and won’t be able to teach your usual courses this semester.  Guess you figure the rest of us will carry your load!”

Mike replies, “I’ll be here part time and teaching only one course.  My wife applied for maternity leave, but we chose to share it so that she could return part time to work…she has a new research grant.  On the days she works, I stay home with the baby and vice versa.  The department arranged for a post-doc, who needs teaching experience, to take my undergraduate course for the semester.  I’ll still teach my graduate seminar.  Overall, our choice benefits everyone.”

“Well, that’s a pretty sweet deal, “ Robert says, looking knowingly at the onlookers at his table.

“Actually, any employee can apply for family leave…to take care of a newborn, a seriously ill spouse, or an elderly parent.  Any of you might need to use it one day.”  Mike decides to have his coffee in his office and walks out.

This post is the third in the series about gender bias.  One of the most common biases is called “The Maternal Wall”, in which mothers (and men who are non-traditional parents) are judged to be less productive or professional than their childless colleagues. 

The scenarios described above are two common situations in which bias of this type can occur.  One example involves a woman who is being targeted by her department chair because he thinks her family responsibilities are interfering with her job performance.  His comments reveal his prejudice against mothers (or parents, in general).  In the second example, the maternal bias is directed at the spouse, who is taking a portion of the maternity leave to care for a newborn.  Note that nothing that was said or done in either example qualifies as sexual harassment or sex discrimination. 

These hypothetical examples are meant to show how subtle bias can be…either disguised as a concerned question (Are your kids sick?) or teasing (“mommy leave”).  Such bias is very difficult to spot immediately.  It may take further reflection on what was said or several similar instances before the victim realizes what’s happening. 

For more on the Maternal Wall and other gender bias patterns, see the Gender Bias Learning Project.

Not A Team Player

We've been talking about gender bias and the "Double Bind", which is a bias in which a woman who displays more "masculine" professional behavior (assertive, strong, confident) may be viewed less favorably by colleagues or even be disliked.  In contrast, a woman who adheres to more traditional feminine behavior in her interactions is liked, but not respected professionally.  I mentioned that today's gender bias is often of a subtle nature, not always easily spotted; I described some scenarios to watch out for and specifically mentioned that whenever anyone was characterized in black and white derogatory terms such as "bossy" or "not a team player", that bias is likely at work.

In the New York Times Magazine, an article describes an exit interview with Sheila C. Bair, chair of the F.D.I.C. (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.), an agency in the US with the mission of protecting citizens' money in banks.  She transformed the F.D.I.C. during her tenure (June 2006 - July 2011) and was an outspoken critic of bank bailouts. Other U.S. bank regulators failed to curtail the various practices that ultimately ended in major failures and the recent economic crisis. The exception was the F.D.I.C. under Bair's leadership. She pushed industry executives to change lending standards "to avoid abusive mortgages so that homeowners would not lose their homes when the housing bubble burst."

Not surprisingly, Bair was characterized as being "difficult" and "not a team player".

Another aspect of her "difficult" behavior was in reaction to something called the "Basel Committee on Banking Supervision".  Basel II, which permitted banks to evaluate their assets with their own risk assessment models, was widely adopted in Europe.  In the US, the Federal Reserve also strongly favored adoption of Basel II. The F.D.I.C. was opposed to it, due to the greater risk of bank failures under Basel II.  Bair was pressured into signing on, but managed to delay long enough that the financial crisis struck before Basel II was ever implemented in the US.  Bair's bureaucratic "foot-dragging" is described by some as a factor in the US avoiding the very worst of the financial crisis.  Apparently, European banks are in much worse shape, a mess that caused widespread bank failures in a number of countries and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.  Bair's "difficult" reputation arose from her refusal to participate in the rescue programs that other US agencies were pushing during the financial emergency.  In other words, she didn't support her team, even though what was being pushed would have made the crisis worse (iwhich turned out to be correct).

The interesting question for us, of course, is how would a man (who behaved as Bair did) have been characterized?  Would he have been called "difficult" or instead "persistent" and "strong-willed"? Would his lone voice have led to his being charged with "not being a team player"?  Or would he have been seen as forceful and confident in his opinion, that is, "sticking to his guns"? Even after it was apparent that some of the proposed measures would have made the financial crisis worse in the US, Bair's influence was still not recognized, much less praised.  Would a man in this position instead be acclaimed as a fiscal "hero" for trying to protect American borrowers and homeowners (the basic job of the F.D.I.C.)?

Bair explained that she "didn't start off being assertive and going public with concerns, but we were being ignored, and we had something to bring to the table." This statement suggests that she initially tried to be heard, but was not taken seriously.  She then changed tactics and became more assertive and persistent, which led to her eventual depiction as being "difficult".  Sometimes, being persistent is the only way a woman can be heard.  Our opinions or requests may be repeatedly ignored, which is frustrating.  It's especially frustrating when we see male colleagues not only being listened to, but assumed to have a useful opinion even before they speak.  We must resort to restating our ideas or needs multiple times and more forcefully in the hopes that eventually someone will acknowledge us.

No wonder that a woman who is forced to use these tactics (more often than men) develops a reputation for being "difficult".

Women Should Be Paid Less Because of Monthly Periods

Just when you think all the dinosaurs have gone extinct (or at least have learned to keep their thoughts to themselves), one of them forgets that it's the 21st century and makes a blatantly sexist statement.

Alasdair Thompson, the CEO of New Zealand's Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA), said in a debate on gender and equality that women should be paid less because of their "monthly sick time".  He stated that women take more sick leave than men, a difference he attributed to women's monthly periods (and having babies). He was attempting to explain why women are paid, on average, 12% less than men.  Thompson walked out on two interviews when asked about his "monthly sickness" statement and where were his statistics about women's sick leave.  Thompson later said in an interview that he was sorry if what he said upset anyone, but that it was true.

Government officials did not agree with him.  Some reactions:



"To have someone with those sort of neanderthal views head of a major employers' association undermines the credibility of the whole organisation."

"At least some of the true attitudes that employers hold are coming out, but they are pretty shocking and utterly sexist." 

"His ideas are 19th century."


"These are the people that are providing hundreds of hours advising business in New Zealand... He's spreading it. He's creating the space for these ideas to take root."


"He's saying we're not entitled to equal pay because women are women - because we have the capacity to give birth and have children. He's in a leadership role and it's pretty much rubbish. It shows worrying prejudice. It's actually illegal to discriminate against women."

"Alasdair Thompson needs to get with the programme."

A firestorm ensued, ending with Thompson getting the sack.  Other repercussions include Air New Zealand cancelling its membership in the EMA.

It's ironic that I've been recently posting about gender bias in the workplace.  This incident highlights the point I made about a bias that someone keeps hidden or that may not be recognized by the perpetrator as a bias until they are called on it.  At some point Thompson said (and I'm paraphrasing) that he realized that what he said was sexist, but he wasn't a sexist.  Hmmm. 

I personally know some men who sound exactly like Thompson.  If you asked them if they support equal pay for women or if they believe women are as capable as men in science, they would vociferously respond in the affirmative.  However, they periodically let slip a comment that reveals gender bias, but they clearly don't recognize it as such (or don't realize that their words reveal their bias).  They defend themselves by insisting that they're just stating the facts...that it has nothing to do with bias.  This is what Thompson tried to do.  This is a guy who says he is all for gender equality and equal pay for women, but who either doesn't "get it" or is flat lying.

The Double Bind

If you are a woman, which do you prefer? Being liked, but not respected or being respected, but not liked.

What's that, you say? You don't like either option? You prefer to be both respected and well-liked? Like your male colleagues?

Unfortunately, women in science and other traditionally male fields may find themselves in a double-bind situation in which they experience a more complex political dynamic than men. This dynamic is sometimes referred to as "ambivalent sexism". The experience is one in which a woman who adheres to more traditional feminine behavior in her interactions is liked, but often not viewed as professionally competent as her male counterparts. Women who depart from the feminine profile may be respected (or their work is respected), but viewed as "too aggressive", "odd", or having other personality "issues". The latter woman is sometimes the butt of department jokes and may be left out of unofficial office social gatherings.

Sure, some women succeed at being both respected and liked. But others do not..for various reasons, some internal, but mostly external. If you are lucky enough to work in a truly egalitarian lab, then count your blessings. If not, then read on.

Gender bias is no longer as blatant as it once was.  Nowadays, it can be quite difficult to spot (which may explain why some people, particularly men, insist it no longer exists or is rare).  There may be little or no overt gender bias, and the workplace culture may be superficially egalitarian and seemingly benign.  Most workplaces, however, are inhabited by at least a few people with traditional views of men and women and "acceptable" behavior by the sexes.  Even though the institution strongly prohibits gender-based bias, individual beliefs and behaviors determine how women are actually treated in the workplace.  Also, the workplace culture may be strongly pro-masculine in its reward system, i.e., reflects a historically male-oriented means of doing business.  The resultant gender bias is virtually invisible to males.  A woman may also not recognize it initially, especially if her workplace makes a show of supporting women and diversity in general.  However, the professional woman may find the work atmosphere strangely stressful, uncomfortable, confining, or somehow not in synch with her own self-view.  She can't quite put her finger on what it is that bothers her...at least not until something obvious happens to reveal the double bind.

The double bind often becomes apparent when the issues of leadership, work-life balance, or self- promotion (bragging) come into focus and are more carefully scrutinized with respect to how men and women in the same positions are judged.

The Leadership Double Bind:  Good leaders are expected to be strong, confident, and assertive.  However, when women act with confidence and take charge, they may be judged to be too aggressive, self-promoting, ambitious, or uncaring.  If instead, the woman behaves less assertively (quietly influential, for example), she is judged to be a poor leader. 

The Work-Life Balance Double Bind:  A lot of workplaces purport to be "family-friendly" with flexible hours, paid leave for family issues, etc.).  However, the person who fails to follow the traditional male model of putting work before family (in a workplace that expects it) is judged to be a poor performer.  Those men and women who put in long hours are rewarded, and those who don't are viewed as less devoted to their work. Although some men may be nurturing and take time for their families, it's more often the woman on whose shoulders these family chores fall.  Males with traditional wives will have an edge over their female counterparts in such a workplace . The female professional without a "stay-at-home spouse" may have to take advantage of the "family-friendly" options to balance work and personal life and consequently be viewed as less productive.  This bias will express itself in various subtle ways. I recall recently a male professor wondering if a female professor should head up a large research project due to the demands of her "large family" (she has three children).

The Self-Promotion Double Bind:  Women are more often chastised for being a "shameless self-promoter" whereas a man is expected to talk about his accomplishments.  I was once chided by a male supervisor for announcing an award I received (even though such announcements were routine in my workplace). The reason given was that I would make my colleagues "jealous". 'Nuff said.

The Team-Player Double Bind: Another common experience of female professionals is being referred to as a "lone wolf" or "not a team player" if she develops a project on her own, whereas a guy will be praised for his initiative and "striking out on his own". I've gotten this very criticism despite a long history of working as part of large research teams. It took only a single case of getting a small grant to do a project on my own to be branded with the term "lone wolf". It seemed that while I was working as part of a team, I could be safely viewed as a follower, or at least not a leader, a more masculine role. When I deviated from that role and showed I could succeed without anyone's (i.e., male) help, it caused consternation in some observers, who quickly tried to shame me back into the more feminine role of follower/supporter.  Female colleagues report that predatory male scientists try to horn in on (or take over) particularly successful research projects they (the female) initiated; when rebuffed, the male reacts by charging her with "not being a team player".

By the way, when you hear yourself (or someone else) being characterized in black-and-white, derogatory terms (lone wolf, bossy, not a team player), be assured that bias is at work.

In misogynist workplaces, women may get along by playing one of three feminine roles (there may be more, but these come to mind):

1. The Mother/Wife who volunteers to do clerical, service, or low-level lab tasks that are not her duty but that frees up the men to do the more "important stuff".  She often cleans up after male colleagues (who may see nothing wrong with this behavior since their mothers/wives do this for them as well).

2. The Faithful Companion/Mistress who aligns herself with a powerful male and never challenges his superiority or upstages him.  There are several variations on this theme. 

3. The Cheerleader who praises male coworkers/colleagues and remains modest and quiet about her own skills. In some cases, female support staff may fulfill this role by complimenting the alpha males and admonishing the female professional for not being similarly starry-eyed about the workplace's Golden Boy(s).

Let me hasten to add that I'm not advocating the above roles as a solution (ha).  I'll try to write a later post with some better approaches to dealing with the double bind and other gender biases.

You might say that someone in a double-bind situation should just ignore it and focus on her job and career.  However, being disliked or disrespected is just another stress on top of other stresses and biases. These little stresses add up, and eventually some women decide that it's just not worth the hassle. The scientific community loses out when talented women drop out.

For more on the Double Bind and other gender bias patterns, see the Gender Bias Learning Project.

Prove It, Again and Again

In the last post, I promised a review of the four most common forms of gender bias.

In this post, I will cover number 1: Prove It Again.  In this type of bias, women working in traditionally male professions (e.g., STEM fields) must prove their competence repeatedly to maintain their credibility while men are presumed to be competent.  If a man makes a mistake, it's more likely to be viewed as not representative of overall ability, whereas a woman's mistake is never forgotten and trotted out whenever she is compared to her male colleagues. Sound familiar?

This double standard is likely one of the factors causing those statistics showing that women must work several times harder and produce more than male counterparts simply to be acknowledged as competent.  This has certainly been my experience throughout my career.  I've observed male scientists, with few accomplishments, be described as "having great potential"and rewarded based on that belief, while highly competent female scientists with a long list of real accomplishments were overlooked.

Earlier in my career, this bias was certainly in evidence. I often felt as if I was running up a down escalator, working harder and harder to reach the top; if I paused, I would be carried backwards.  I saw male colleagues with less experience and fewer accomplishments being offered more responsibility, higher level positions, and better opportunities to work on (or lead) research projects.  They were on the up-escalator.  Some were actively climbing, while others were just standing; but all could move up, even with no effort. 

The few times I complained, I was told that "Joe" was being promoted because he showed "potential".  In one job, when I asked for a raise or promotion, I was always told that I would be recommended, but only after I had accomplished a specific task--usually something that my supervisor figured I would never be able to do (conduct a difficult study and get a paper published reporting the results within a certain time-frame).  When I came back with that task completed, I was given what I had been promised, but the delay was sometimes as long as a year.  I was too young and naive to realize what was happening. I just assumed that my performance was somehow lacking, and these extra requirements were necessary to prove my capabilities to superiors.  I eventually realized that male counterparts were not required to jump through the same hoops (I asked them).

I doubt that my superiors (male) were consciously biased, because I was encouraged to develop as a scientist.  Whatever I had accomplished in the past, however, was apparently not enough to be viewed as showing "potential" (much less having achieved that potential). They just seemed to need additional evidence of my capability--no matter what I had accomplished in the past.

I realize now that part of this perception was due to the fact that I did not "promote" myself by talking about my accomplishments or making sure that my skills were widely known.  I've discussed the topic of bragging in previous posts and the influence it can have on one's career.  It's particularly difficult for women, who are typically expected to be modest, to self-promote successfully.  I'm not sure it would have worked for me, and possibly could have backfired--at least at that time and at that stage in my career.

For more on gender bias patterns, see the Gender Bias Learning Project.  The next post will talk about the choice women must make between being liked but not respected and being respected but not liked.