‘If Women Want Equality at Work, They Should Act More Like Men’
And yet even when we do, we’re penalised for it
The Noösphere is an entirely reader-supported publication that brings the latest social sciences research into frequently overlooked topics. If you read it every week and value the labour that goes into it, consider becoming a paid subscriber! You can also buy me a coffee instead.
If there’s one thing there’s been no shortage of in recent years, it’s the amount of career advice for women.
We’re told to ‘lean in’ and ‘act more like a man’ and ‘just be more confident’ and ‘work extra hard to get noticed’ and ‘don’t be afraid to ask for more’ and… ‘stop emailing like a woman,’ because that’s also apparently a thing.
The most unhinged advice I have personally received is ‘just don’t think of yourself as a woman.’ Unfortunately, it’s kind of unavoidable not to think of yourself as who you are, as every look in the mirror or reflection in a window reminds you of that very fact. And so do people around you.
In my first — and only — office job I had the displeasure of being vastly outnumbered by men. And, unfortunately, I was acutely aware of being a woman for the simple reason that most ‘womanly’ duties were constantly dumped on my plate — all the organising and planning and birthday-cake-buying and taking care of the new joiners. Still, my last performance review made it clear I’m not trying ‘hard enough.’
No matter how well intended all these words of advice given over and over to women in a bid to close the gender pay and career gaps are, they largely ignore the elephant in the room: gender bias. And the extent of this bias often makes this advice pointless at best and counter-productive at worst. Yes, even today.
According to a recent study, if you put in long hours as a woman, you likely won’t be rewarded nearly as much as men are.
And actually, it might have the exact opposite effect you were hoping for.
A study published in the Social Psychology Quarterly last month and led by Christin L. Munsch, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Connecticut, looked into how overwork status and gender play into our evaluations of worker commitment, competence and, consequently, how deserving they are of workplace rewards — such as promotion opportunities, for instance.
To this end, the researchers surveyed 230 US employees, each of whom was asked to review time-tracking and performance evaluation data for a pair of equally performing, same-gender (men or women) employees. However, one was an overworker — logging 60 hours per week — and the other was a regular full-time worker — logging 40 hours.
And yet, despite identical performance evaluations, it’s overworkers who were evaluated much more positively than employees who didn’t put in longer hours and who were, by definition, more efficient.
But what the researchers identified as the ‘overwork premium’ isn’t just irrational, it’s also gender biased. The study found that if a woman does the same amount and quality of work in 40 hours as a man does in 60 hours, the man will receive greater rewards. Even if the woman clocks 60 hours per week, a man who clocks the same amount is 8% more likely to receive overwork rewards than the woman.
And although participants rated all overworkers as overall more career-committed and competent than the full-time workers, this ratings boost was significantly greater for men than women.
As the study goes to point out:
They [the evaluators] believe women work long hours in part because they are less efficacious and need more time to complete their work.
In other words, men who overwork get rewarded. Meanwhile, women who overwork might be suspected of being less competent. And even if they aren’t, they don’t reap the same benefits as men.
I recently came across another new study published by Cambridge University Press that investigated the extent of women’s discrimination in the fintech industry. In addition to the unsurprising finding that women are vastly underrepresented in the sector — they account for just 4% of CEOs and only 18% of executive committee members — the interviews with people working in it revealed something else.
Namely, that while women in fintech often work hard — several interviewees noted they work harder than their male peers — it’s the performance of masculinity, not the quality of the work or ideas, that tends to be the most valued. This leads to women’s ideas being routinely dismissed, women being passed over for promotions and networking opportunities, or even being less likely to be hired, the paper found.
The study led by Munsch hinted at a similar link between cultural norms of masculinity and perceived competence, too. One of the participants even responded that workplace competition is essentially just men constantly trying to ‘out-macho each other.’
Still, even when women try to join that contest and ‘act more like men,’ that doesn’t help us much either.
We’ve come a long way since women were literally barred from certain professions (sometimes violently), but there’s still a lingering bias against women in the workplace that often manifests itself in discrimination. In particular, in fields coded as ‘masculine’ and mostly dominated by men — like business, politics, science, IT, engineering or construction.
Women in these fields might work hard — if not harder — to get ahead, but there’s no guarantee this will lead to the same compensation, opportunities or treatment as men in the exact same position tend to receive.
Hell, we might not get to that position in the first place.
A number of studies show that men’s qualifications and achievements are frequently perceived more favourably, even when identical to those of a woman. One study asked over 100 university psychologists to rate the CVs of two fictional applicants — Dr. Karen Miller and Dr. Brian Miller — for an academic tenure-track job. And although the CVs were identical, apart from the name, it’s Dr. Brian who was perceived to have better research, teaching, and service experience than the equally qualified Dr. Karen.
Overall, three-quarters thought the male candidate was hireable, while less than half had the same confidence in the female candidate.
This bias is particularly strong against mothers, though. Another similar study found that compared with identical nonmother candidates, mother candidates were seen as 10% less competent, 15% less committed to the workplace and worthy of $11,00 less salary. Overall, less than half of mothers were considered hireable, while over 80% of nonmothers with the same CVs were recommended for hire.
Still, even if we get ‘lucky’ and get the jobs we’re qualified for, it’s not exactly a walk in the park either. In addition to likely reaping fewer rewards for working long hours — or even being perceived as incompetent because of it — women are also less likely to succeed in raise or promotion negotiations. And that’s despite the fact that they attempt them more often than men, contrary to the common belief that women ‘just don’t ask for it.’
On top of that, women in the workplace walk a very fine line between being warm enough to avoid being perceived as ‘unfeminine’ and ‘bitchy’ but assertive, tough and ‘masculine’ enough to seem competent. That’s the so-called ‘warmth-competence tradeoff.’
Only if we act too much like men we are penalised, too.
Psychologist and writer Cordelia Fine describes this phenomenon well in her seminal book Delusions of Gender:
Experimental studies find that, unlike men, when they try to negotiate greater compensation they are disliked. When they try out intimidation tactics, they are disliked. When they succeed in a male occupation, they are disliked. When they fail to perform the altruistic acts that are optional for men, they are disliked. When they do go beyond the call of duty they are not, as men are, liked more for it. When they criticise, they are disparaged. Even when they merely offer an opinion, people look displeased. (…)
The same behaviour that enhances his status simply makes her less popular. It’s not hard to see that this makes the goal of getting ahead in the workplace distinctly more challenging for a woman.
We so often hear that discrimination against women in the workplace is a thing of the past, and it’s ‘all in our heads’ since in so many countries, it’s been unlawful for more than four decades now.
On paper, women are equal.
On paper, we should be doing just as well as men are.
And if we find it hard, well, we should just try (insert one of the generic and unhelpful career advice given to women here).
Actually, according to the latest report from the World Bank, no country in the world affords women the same opportunities as men in the workforce, with women enjoying fewer than two-thirds of the rights of men globally.
Still, legislation is no guarantee for social change, I’m afraid.
Even women in some of the most gender-equal countries on this planet, such as Iceland and Denmark, and despite the introduction of numerous policies aiming to advance gender equality, aren’t treated equally, which scholars dubbed the ‘Nordic paradox.’ And they still find it necessary to go out on the streets protesting the discrimination they encounter, as women in Iceland did last year.
You can have all the necessary qualifications, work hard, put in long hours, ask for better pay or a better position often, exude confidence and competence, and any other trait that your male peers are praised for, but trying to win in a system set out by men, for men, with men still mostly on top of it today is essentially a losing game for women.
Even if we were equally likely to work long hours — on average, we don’t because even full-time female employees shoulder 22% more unpaid domestic labour than their male counterparts — workplace inequality would still exist. We can’t overwork our way out of it.
But what makes gender bias in the workplace — or anywhere else — particularly insidious and difficult to eradicate today is that it’s often unconscious.
If you directly asked people if they believe women should be held to a higher standard than men at work or if it’s fair to favour men over equally qualified women in hiring simply because they’re men, I doubt many people would agree — at least today. But that doesn’t mean they won’t make biased decisions throughout their lives anyway.
Widely shared cultural beliefs about gender still assume that competence and, by extension, the workplace are largely men’s domain. After all, men are supposed to be the breadwinners, and women are supposed to be caregivers. Men bring home the bacon, and women fry it.
Only at no point in human history did women not work. Women’s labour just went unnoticed, unappreciated, and undervalued.
And while a few things have changed in recent decades, it seems like our perception of discrimination against women has changed more than its reality.
It’s not women who ought to change.
It’s our workplaces and the culture that’s guiding them.
As the study led by Munsch shows, we are so brainwashed by the hustle culture — particularly in countries like the US — that overwork is more valued than actual efficiency. That’s nonsensical.
Besides, this specific brand of masculinity dominating many modern workplaces today — the one that glorifies overwork, competitiveness, aggression, and dominance — is not doing any of us any favours. (Or our planet.)
People should be treated fairly and given equal opportunity, yes, but we should also be seen as people — not machines.
I saw the double edges of this sword recently here in Canada. Just the other day, the Minister of Finance (a woman) delivered the Government budget for the coming year. There was much talk of "helping" everyone become "equal" via financial rebates and tax cuts (of course women are seen as "helpers"). But most of the opposition parties weren't buying that and criticized the government for spending so much irresponsibly. I have to think that at least one of the opposition leaders was using those words as a code for "Women are irresponsible spendthrifts who shouldn't be in that Cabinet position", because he's just LIKE that...
Traditional gender roles: women are the brood mares, men are the work horses.
Postmodern gender roles: both genders are work horses now. Because "equality".
Reactionary gender roles: both genders are work horses, but women must become brood mares as well.
La plus ca change. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Just say "NEIGH" to rigid and dehumanizing gender roles of any kind!