As part of my ongoing series to make business psychology ideas more simple and practical, I seek to address the question:
What are Gender Myths?
Several years ago, I was dropping my young son at our local nursery. As I am milling about, registering my boy into class, and watching the kids cause havoc, I notice one of the nursery assistants handing out beakers of water for the little ones. As she comes round to my son, she hands him a beaker and then (with a beaming smile and genuine innocence) immediately takes it off him, apologises sweetly, and says “Sorry Dylan! That’s not for you…” and hands the PINK beaker to the nearest available girl. And so it begins, I thought…
Gender is a touchy subject. Does it exist? Is it innate? Is it different from biological sex? How should it shape and dictate who we are, how we should be and what we can achieve?
Let’s take a look.
OK, first the big one. Girls and boys are not fundamentally born different in the way they think. Yes, of course, there are clear physiological differences between male and female bodies, but these differences do not extend to the way the brains are ‘wired’ or the way they process the world around them. Simply put, our brains are plastic and are moulded, shaped and reshaped by our lived experiences. The research is clear. Men are not from Mars, and women are not from Venus. (If you want to know more, I would highly recommend The Gendered Brain, by Gina Rippon, as a fascinating insight).
In reality therefore, these supposed ‘differences’ are nothing more than stereotypes; social constructs that simplify the human condition to neat labels. It is what we make up to perpetuate the status quo.
Historically, such stereotypes were in-your-face. Men are tough, strong willed and ballsy. Women were kind, gentle and demure. Boys are supposed to play with guns, while girls were supposed to play with dolls. Boys were told to ‘man-up’ and girls were told to be the ‘little princess’.
Nowadays, we like to think we’ve done away with such crass labelling of the genders, but we haven’t. All we’ve really done is soften the tone, while perpetuating the myths. Male leaders are driven, analytical and assertive. Women leaders are empathetic, nurturing and supportive. Same ‘stuff’, different wording.
In the world of work, this ‘complimentary, yet different’ approach to gender labelling is initially appealing but is in fact problematic. When considering Board-level appointments, I can understand the appeal of bringing in women (supportive) to balance out the men (driven). But such logic is based on untruths. Personality data shows that men and women do not significantly differ in the degree to which the are likely to be driven, empathetic, analytical, supportive, assertive, and so on. As a result, the assumption that a gender-balanced Board will result in a balance in ‘Board personality’ is false.
Also, the way we view these facets of personality is not immune to the toxic effect of gender stereotypes. When viewing a person’s ability to do a job, we tend to consider two dimensions – ‘warmth’ (i.e. supportive, collaborative, engaging, nurturing) and ‘competence’ (i.e. driven, analytical, decisive, competitive). But again, this can be problematic for two reasons.
Firstly, when we map people according to these two dimensions while also asking ourselves which is most important for success in a role, most people will consider traits associated with ‘competence’ as being the real factors of success. If we limit our view of female candidates in terms of ‘warmth’ characteristics therefore, then they are not considered worthy. So, they lose.
Secondly, if we say to ourselves that women therefore need to behave more in line with the traits associated with ‘competence’, then they have a fighting chance, right? Wrong. Women who are assertive are labelled as ‘aggressive’. Women who are driven are labelled as ‘pushy’. So, once again, they lose.
This is the very definition of a lose-lose scenario in which women are routinely overlooked for leadership positions because they are either expected to display ‘less’ important traits (i.e. ‘warmth’) or they actually do display ‘more’ important traits (i.e. competence) but are viewed negatively for doing so.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
So, what should we do?
In a nutshell, gender equality is the natural state of women and men at work. Inequality is a cultural product created and maintained by people, consciously and unconsciously. It is a learned behaviour. And as such, it can be unlearned or replaced by new learning.
Start by considering the problem. Systemic gender inequality is written into each of us as human-beings. Know, accept and understand your biases, particularly when it comes to gendered stereotypes. Be perceptive to your own thoughts and how you label others. Listen attentively to how others around you describe men and women, and how those descriptions influence their decisions.
Look to your systems and processes. Analyse your progression rates amongst men and women and challenge prevailing myths that you are working in a meritocratic organisation (spoiler alert, you’re not). Orchestrate smarter evaluation procedures that remove gender, in its many subtle forms, as a variable. Reinforce positive role models (male and female) that challenge the prevailing view that either gender has to be a particular way to succeed.
And finally, stop the ‘pinkification’ of girls. Boys can like pink, and girls can like blue.
Want to know more? Give us a call on 07768 464680.