Women are undervalued in the workplace (and it seems normal to us).

What is expected of a man is not the same as what is expected of a woman in the workplace.

Surely you know of more than one case in which the meritorious actions of a person are not duly recognized. The opinions of people with a lot to say and contribute are systematically undervalued. systematically undervalued simply because of who they are.

Possibly, also, you will think that these are exceptional cases that do not affect the vast majority of us: the victims of this discrimination are people who, despite being totally valid, are either situated in an unusual context or are themselves unusual. For example, it is not uncommon to witness paternalistic attitudes towards beggars or people from very different cultures who seem strange to us.

In fact, we recommend that you read the article "The psychology of sexism: 5 sexist ideas that are common today".

Women in business: structural discrimination

However, this type of "speaker bias" does not occur only in isolated cases: there is a variant of it that has seeped deep into our society and crosses the quality of the relationships we have with each other like a breach. And the fact is, although we rationally know that words spoken by men and women are worth the same, it cannot be said that we always act accordingly.. At least within organizations.

Gender bias

We have long been familiar with the world of double standards that guide the way we perceive both sexes based on different gender biasGender bias: what is expected of a man is not the same as what is expected of a woman. To this list we have to add a new unjustified (and unjustifiable) comparative grievance that is incorporated into our way of perceiving the world. It seems that the loquacity is not a highly valued trait in women even when the success of teamwork is at stake.

Psychologist Adam Grant noticed this while researching in work groups linked to the professional environment. Male employees who contributed valuable ideas were rated significantly more positively by their superiors. In addition, the more the employee talked, the more useful he became, the more the employee spoke up, the more useful he was in the eyes of his superior.. The same was not true, however, when the person being evaluated was a woman: in the case of women, their contributions did not lead to a more positive evaluation of their performance.. Similarly, the fact that a woman spoke more was not matched by a better consideration of her role in the company.

Who says what?

The results of this research lead us to believe that men and women do not receive the same recognition for what they say or propose. While the good news is that those organizations in which there is communication have a significant flow of ideas, the bad news is that the perceived usefulness or uselessness of these ideas seems to depend in part on who says them. the perceived usefulness or uselessness of these ideas seems to depend in part on who is saying them..

With that in mind, men have good reasons to speak up and propose things (since their ideas will be taken into consideration and will also bring them a better reputation and promotion possibilities), while for women this possibility is more blurred. However, it is one thing for there to be a double yardstick in the eyes of the evaluator and another for everyone, both the evaluator and the evaluated, to accept this yardstick. Do we take the existence of this gender bias as something natural?

It seems to be so, and to a large extent. In a study conducted by psychologist Victoria L. Brescoll Victoria L. Brescolla number of people of both sexes were asked to imagine their performance as a member of a hypothetical company meeting. Some of these people were asked to imagine themselves as the most powerful member of the meeting, while others were asked to think of themselves as being the lowest rung in the hierarchy.

Result: men in the "boss's" shoes said they would speak up more (measuring the degree to which they would speak up). (measuring the degree to which they would talk on a scale), while women put in a "boss" situation women in a position of power adjusted their speaking adjusted their speaking time to a level similar to that of their lower-ranking colleagues.. Furthermore, to reinforce the line of research, the first part of this same study reports how the most powerful female U.S. senators do not differ much from female senators with a lower profile. junior The opposite is true for senators. It seems that this penchant for "self-silencing" is also extended to women in the upper echelons of decision-making.

Another form of inequality

It is more or less clear that, in the case of women, the path of loquacity offers fewer possibilities for women of making valuable contributions. In this case, we would be talking about the so-called opportunity cost: better not to waste time and effort talking when other things can be done that will be more beneficial to all.

However, Brescoll suspects that this apparent shyness on the part of women may be due to fear of facing social sanctions for speaking too much. social sanctions for talking too much.Is it possible that, in fact, talking more not only does not add but also subtracts? Can a woman have more difficulty because she is more talkative? This may seem to be an unjustified concern, but if it is well-founded, the consequences could be very negative. To answer this question, Brescoll conducted a further section of her study.

The price of being talkative

In this last section of the research, 156 volunteers, including men and women, read a short biographical profile about a senior manager (CEO) who was presented as either a man or a woman (John Morgan or Jennifer Morgan).

In addition to this slight variation, the content of the biography also differed in another respect: some of the profiles portrayed a relatively talkative person, while the other set of biographies dealt with a person who was less talkative than usual. Since this was a between-subjects study, each person read one and only one of the 4 types of biographical profiles (2 types of biographies according to the sex of the profile and 2 types of biographies according to how much or how little the CEO speaks). After this, each of the 156 volunteers had to evaluate the profile profile they had read according to Mr. or Ms. Morgan's ability to hold the position of CEO using rating scales from 0 to 7 points.

The results

The first striking finding is that the sex of the the gender of the participants did not seem to play an important role in assessing the in evaluating the profile that each of them had in front of them. The second fact to comment on is that the fear of social sanction is justified: talkativeness seems to be a characteristic frowned upon in the female sex.The second fact to comment on is that the fear of social sanction is justified: talkativeness seems to be a characteristic frowned upon in the female sex, at least in the workplace and for the position of CEO or similar.

As Brescoll and his team found, the most talkative male CEOs were rewarded with a 10% higher score, while the most talkative female CEOs were rewarded with a 10% higher score, while the most talkative male CEOs were rewarded with a 10% higher score, while the most talkative male CEOs were rewarded with a 10% higher score. this same trait, loquacity, was punished in female profiles.. Specifically, the most loquacious J. Morgans received about 14% lower scores. Once again, it is worth stressing the fact that this was done by both men and women, and that this is a totally irrational bias that acts as a This is a totally irrational bias, which acts as a ballast when it comes to reaching or remaining in a position of greater or lesser power and responsibility.. This disadvantage affects both the living conditions of women (a difficulty when it comes to economic advancement) and the social relations that we maintain among ourselves and everything that derives from them.

Moreover, this disadvantage has a pincer effect: theoretically, in order to thrive in organizations, it is necessary to contribute ideas to the collective as a whole, and yet this need to contribute ideas also entails an exposure that can have its dangers. Women can be undervalued both for not speaking as much as men and for doing so. Of course, in addition, the entire the organization as a whole is also harmed by this dynamic of harmful relationships, although there may be a male elite by this dynamic of harmful relationships, although there may be a male elite that perpetuates itself more easily by virtue of having certain Biological characteristics.

However, while it is true that this bias seems to be firmly entrenched in our understanding of the world, it is also true that it is totally unjustified. Brescoll speculates that these results may be explained by gender roles. gender roles assigned to positions of power: "powerful men must demonstrate their power, while powerful women must not". In other words, what keeps this bias alive are entirely cultural forces. totally cultural forces and which, therefore, we have the possibility of changing.

Beyond the rational

In short, the fact of speaking too much implies a penalty that affects both women's chances of advancement and their valuation by others. Whether this form of discrimination is something that is only present in formalized partnership systems (hierarchical companies, public positions, etc.) or transcends this sphere is something that these studies have not gone into in depth. Unfortunately, however, it seems unrealistic to think that this bias only acts precisely in those areas where logic and efficiency should prevail the most (in other words, where there are more problems than in other areas). (in other words, where it is most problematic).

Both the fact that many potentially valuable contributions are dismissed because they were proposed by women and the existence of social sanctions for women who "talk too much" are examples of a sexism that is rooted in all social spheres and that gender studies and many feminist theories have reported on. gender studies and many feminist theories. This is, in short, a sign that neither the corporate world is as independent of our informal relationships nor its functioning is as rational as it is usually assumed.

Bibliographical references:

• Brescoll, V. L. (2012). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly. 56(4), pp. 622 - 641. doi:10.1177/0001839212439994.

• Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the Boat but Keeping It Steady: The Role of Emotion Regulation in Employee Voice. Academy of Management. 56(6), pp. 1703 - 1723. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0035