FC Experts Blogs
November 8, 2007
Leadership: Does Hillary Play Like A Girl?
Since the Democratic debate on October 30, there has been a veritable media hissy-fit over Hillary Clinton’s purported stumbles as well as her resorting to the gender card when her campaign labeled the attacks by her competitors and the moderators – all men – as “the politics of piling on.”
Pundits male and female, on the left and right cannot seem to stop criticizing and complaining that Hillary is taking it all too personally, that if she wants to fight in that ring, she’s got to be able to take a few on the chin and she shouldn’t whine that the boys are attacking her unfairly.
Welcome to the girls’ club, Hill.
As any woman who has spent time in conference or board rooms populated by men knows, women are attacked more frequently and over less significant issues than the men in the room are. That’s if they’re not ignored entirely or having their ideas co-opted by a more aggressive male colleague or boss. (By the way, men don’t necessarily intend to sabotage women in business nor may they even see such behavior as a barrier to women’s success, if they are conscious of it at all. Of course, this being presidential politics, one can never be certain about such things.)
This all goes to gender differences in communication: Men are socialized to jockey for status, to speak up even when there is little of importance to say –- just to be heard, to stake their claim, to be identified as a player. Women, on the other hand, are socialized to be collaborative, to play nice, to keep things level with everyone on the same plane and to speak up only when there is something really important to say. The result is they speak up less and thus the percentage of times their ideas are shot down is greater. They are also less likely to argue, to fight for what they believe and to stand up for themselves. This is all well and good in social situations around other women, but it doesn’t work at work.
So was Hillary guilty of any of that stereotypical female communication behavior during the debate? I don’t think so. The punditocracy is wrong. She gave a strong performance. She took a lot of punches and remained upright. She didn’t get ruffled and her tone remained measured and even. She had a couple of material stumbles, yes, but not serious enough to warrant the relentless criticism that has resulted. We must be having some slow news days.
Were the men “piling on?” You bet they were. We can argue about whether it was because she is the frontrunner or because she’s a woman. (My opinion? Both.) Her opponents and the moderators, especially Tim Russert, roundly attacked her constantly and without mercy in a way that no male candidate was and usually isn’t.
But she shouldn’t have complained about it and that’s where Clinton and her campaign went wrong. That tactic never has worked very well and women are tired of the victim label, anyway. That’s playing like a girl. Instead, women have quietly, subtly been adapting the rules of the communications game to fit within their stylistic parameters. And what does that look like? I’ll tell you this much, it doesn’t look like the way men do it.
Professional women –- and I suspect even non-professional women –- felt something very unpleasantly familiar while watching this debate unfold. They said to themselves, “Here we go again. Well, guess what, guys, I’m voting for her and aren’t you going to be stunned when she wins. You never saw it coming. We may not complain about this type of treatment, but boy, when I’m alone in that voting booth, the joke’s on you.”
Not playing like a girl. Playing like a woman.
What’s your experience with gender differences in workplace communication?
technorati tags: communication, gender differences, Hillary Clinton
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • www.ruthsherman.com
Posted by Ruth Sherman at November 8, 2007 10:20 AM | Topic: leadership |
7 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
Featured Services
FC Experts MENU
FC EXPERTS TOPICS
FC READS
Hmmm, not really. There are two points to consider:
1. Hilary should not be picked on as a woman, that's being sexist and worse, being bullying.
2. The pseudo-feminist view that all men are alpha-males, privileged and assholes was echoed in S** and the City, with The Desirable Man being Big.
Such men are in the minority, by definition, and those antiquated tactics would not be used by any men in a corporate, professional arena precisely for the reasons given here. This article has the 2 Dimensional Man cardboard cutout in mind often used in undergrad social classes.
Those views are as offensive as the converse ones where women are the "nurturing communicators". Offices are made up off all types.
Disappointing article for a great site.
What notreally seems to have gotten from this post is a caricature of all men. That is not my intention. Any time we speak of gender differences in the workplace, we generalize based on valid research conducted over long periods of time.
The workplace is filled with this type of behavior. I see it constantly and clients complain about it to me constantly. Of course not all men fit the stereotype just as all women are not quiet and caring.
The best proof I can offer that women are hurt by workplace practices is the fact that, in 2006, of the Fortune 1000, only 20 were headed by women. That was up fom 19 in 2005. Pretty stark evidence that something is wrong somewhere.
Hillary is a woman. Trying to determine whether this obvious fact has played a role in how others treat (or mistreat) her is just silly. Even if it is a factor it's a minor factor compared with the fact that she's her party's front runner, a woman, AND Bill Clinton's wife.
Who out there honestly believes she would have had a chance of becoming a Senator if not for being Bill's wife? Who thinks she'd have a chance at being President if not for being Bill's wife? No chance at either. So rather then turn the spotlight on her womanhood and pretend that any resistance she encounters is due to her being a woman why not focus the attention on how much this is in effect a run for a third term by Bill?
The Clinton's both have a reputation for playing attack politics and it's been said that Hillary is the bite behind the bark. She'd be wise to save the crybaby act and just work on giving us honest heartfelt answers to questions whether she wants them asked or not.
Even more interesting is the fact that Obama's comment that he hasn't needed to play the race card got no real media traction.
I'd have to agree with Notreally above - for all of Hillary's faults, she goofed on playing the sexism card.
Politics is won on ideas and personality (preferably the former, and usually the latter). Reagan proved that this could be done on both counts.
If you want to go to a real winner in this area, look up Elizabeth Edwards, who is getting more press than her husband. She doesn't complain about the "pile-on" - she just keeps slugging it out.
Whining only gets you offers of more cheese. That her husband then defended her with terms like "swiftboating" only made it worse.
Her real problem is her chronic triangulation, instead of having integrity. The press shows too much that she is on several sides of certain issues - which is a personality flaw. Guililani is overcoming apparent shortcomings with simply admitting mistakes quickly and then restating his ideals.
Hillary shouldn't play like a girl or a woman - she should play like a person.
Regarding notreally's comments about the stereotypical man, nowhere in the post did I say that all men fit the stereotype, just as not all women fit the quiet, nurturing stereotype.
My point is that in a world where, of the Fortune 1000, only 20 are headed by women (as of 2006) 40 years after the start of the women's movement, something is clearly wrong.
As a communication specialist, my observations and grasp of the data are hard to ignore as are the clients and large businesses who come to my company looking to correct these inequities. It all falls under "diversity," which, in itself, identifies women as "the other." This alone sends a powerful message to both genders.
So, yes, such behavior is offensive, my point exactly. Let's do something about it and the first thing to do is to gain an awareness that it exists especially since these behaviors are largely unconscious.
I wish that notreally's reality were true, but, sadly, it's not really.
I agree with Robert's comments and feel they echo my own, not notreally's. She should not have played the gender card, but not for the reasons Robert lays out.
Again, I wish that playing like a "person" was all it took to even the score. However, men are the dominant culture in the workplace and, as such, women must reckon with that communication style, not the other way around, devising stragies to overcome deeply ingrained attitudes on both sides.
And, he's so right about personality -- and I would add presentation -- being the strongest factor in how the game is won. Clinton certainly falls short there. My point is that it's harder for her because of the clear gender differences in communication and expectations by the public. It's extra stuff that all women have to deal with every day that men just don't. It's complicated and exhausting.
That's no excuse, of course. Running for president is Hillary's choice. Regarding Elizabeth Edwards, she is indeed impressive but, let's be honest, has much less to lose. Still, we can fantasize that she'd be better than Hillary on the campaign trail, though we really don't know.
Giuliani is doing suprisingly well for exactly the reasons Robert states. A good lesson for anyone in business, male or female.
Look Hillary is a girl. And she will play like a girl. I work with all women in my department and I and the boss. Women can't take critisism and don't like being picked on. They just can't handle it. Also most women can't handle the tough situations, they want the man in charge to take care of things. What happens if she becomes President and there is no man in charge? She wan't know what to do and will turn to Bill to look for answers, and we know what he was like. Ask yourself this: Do you really want Hillary, the power hungry whiny little tramp, to run your company? Hillary will continue to use the gender card all her life because she has that victim mentallity and no real leadership skills.