The Road Not Taken: Hush Dear, The Menfolk Are Talking

As a society, we have an obligation to protect our citizens from crime. Does an organization have the same obligation to protect some of its members from impoliteness and obnoxious behavior?

Facebook COO and “Lean In” author Sheryl Sandberg and Wharton Professor Adam Grant are in the middle of a four-part series in the New York Times about women in the workplace. Their January 12, 2015, piece, “Speaking While Female,” made me think about my own experiences of working while female and also put me in mind of one of the key elements I identified in my last two posts, “Creating the Conditions for Success From Within”: Communication. More specifically, listening as a cornerstone for creating the conditions of success from within. Listening, it turns out, is fraught with gender politics.

Sandberg and Grant’s premise is that women who speak up are not rewarded like their male colleagues. Women are interrupted, their ideas credited to male colleagues, and the information women impart is not valued because it is based on the messenger instead of its content. The authors support their premise with a couple of studies, and found that women who “worry that talking ‘too much’ will cause them to be disliked are not paranoid; they are often right.” Sandberg and Grant conclude that organizations are harmed by not encouraging and supporting women who voice their thoughts.

Like the women highlighted in Sandberg and Grant’s piece, I too have been interrupted at work by my male colleagues and my ideas co-opted. It would be easy to blame my experiences with male colleagues who interrupt and dismiss me on their outdated sexism, but I don’t think my male colleagues are that two-dimensional. Also, taken at face value, this superficial paradigm absolves me of any responsibility.

Here’s the truth: I interrupt people too. Sometimes, if an idea is good and the idea creator doesn’t take credit for it, I’ll run with it. Someone has to and it may as well be me. Interrupting and idea-stealing are not only male-on-female crimes. The comments to the Sandberg and Grant article provide anecdotal evidence that victims are not limited by gender. People of color and people of quieter disposition report similar treatment in their careers. Women are not the only victims, and men are not the only perpetrators. As a society, we have an obligation to protect our citizens from crime. Does an organization have the same obligation to protect some of its members from impoliteness and obnoxious behavior?

Work is not a group therapy session. Work is competitive. If you work with other people, the social hierarchy has to be figured out. Are you strong or are you weak? Are your contributions worth fighting for — not just by other people, but by you? Are you willing to fight for your ideas instead of letting someone else determine the value of your contribution? Is it better to let the individuals of the organization sort these things out like adults, or provide a regulated structure so each member feels secure and nurtured? Sandberg and Grant focused on a “no interruption” rule as a solution to this issue. While a basic tenet of civil discourse is certainly a good start to polite behavior in the workplace, I don’t think it addresses the larger problem: a competitive workplace fosters an aggressive culture.

When we are paid for the labors of our intellect, our ideas become part of the currency system of our work. An idea has no real value unless it is a good idea. Bad ideas are easy, anyone can come up with a bad idea. Good ideas are harder to come by. Harder still is figuring out whether an idea is truly good, or just another bad idea. Blurting out an idea and hoping to be recognized for it isn’t enough. You have to take the risk to say your idea is good, be its champion, and campaign for it. If the idea is good, it will eventually find an advocate, whether it is you or someone else. You have to take the risk to place value on your contributions. That will mean comparing your ideas against those of your colleagues and articulating why your idea is better. New ideas are threatening. If you are going to challenge your organization’s status quo, you bring your ideas to the Thunderdome: two ideas enter, one idea leaves to survive another day. If you want to be recognized, come to battle and come to win. There is no room in Thunderdome for shy insecurity.

None of this negates the realities facing women in the workplace. Yes, outspoken women are often seen as bossy and shrill, and our contributions can be dismissed or overlooked by our colleagues. Sandberg and Grant’s suggestion of a “no interruption” rule in the workplace may work for some, but in organizations where a competitive and assertive culture reigns, women must put themselves in a position to be disliked.  Ideas, if they are truly new to an organization, ruffle feathers.  Yes-people and quiet head-nodders will always be liked, regardless of gender.  There is no way around it: If you, man or woman, are going to disagree with someone else, or advocate your contributions over those of your colleagues, you may not be liked by those who have put their chips in with another set of values. It is up to you to decide whether your idea is good enough to endure personal work squabbles.  Everyone makes these decisions; men and women.

Sponsored

Finally, personal responsibility plays a role in this cultural dynamic. I recently went to lunch with several colleagues: 3 men, 3 women. The men all hold senior positions. The women are grunts. The women were quieter than usual; we let the menfolk talk. We were interrupted by the men when we spoke. But none of us pointed out the inequity in the conversation. None of us fought for ourselves or each other for equal time in the conversation. However, I suspect that if any or all of us had taken the effort to point out the discrepancy to our male colleagues, I have no doubt they would have been mortified and surprised to think they had made us feel unwelcome in their social exchange. They weren’t interrupting and talking over us because they don’t appreciate us or think less of us and our potential input. They were interrupting and talking over us because we let them.

And there is nobody to blame for that but myself.


Celeste Harrison Forst has practiced in small and mid-sized firms and is now in-house at a large manufacturing and technology company where she receives daily hugs from her colleagues. You can reach Celeste directly at C.harrisonforst@gmail.com.

Sponsored