Earlier this year, we took a look at the confidence gap between men and women in the workplace. This gap has very real impact on a woman’s road to the C-suite and grows out of a complex network of root causes ranging from socialization within our education system to biological differences to the reception some women receive when embodying confidence in the workplace. Renowned legal professor Joan C. Williams of University of California at Hastings recently addressed some of the challenges women face in advancing their careers and offered some strategies to help.
In a module developed for the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Williams identifies a broad pattern of gender bias that she calls ‘”Prove It Again.” This refers to the well-researched phenomenon of men being hired or promoted based on potential, while women are more often judged on their achievements. Moreover, women’s mistakes tend to be noticed more and remembered longer while their successes may be attributed to luck. This creates a culture in which women must prove themselves over and over again.
At first glance, the solution to this challenge would seem to be self-promotion—for women to aggressively broadcast their accomplishments. But this solution comes with its own challenge: in some environments women receive a negative reception when they tout their achievements. To address this, Williams suggests forming a “posse” of people—it can include both men and women—that agree to celebrate each other’s accomplishments. This way, instead of engaging in self-promotion, members of the posse promote their teammates. The posse achieves many of the same goals as self-promotion, but also demonstrates a commitment to self-less community, defanging potential criticism of “self-absorbed” or “overly-aggressive” behavior.
In addition to the “prove it again” bias, Williams also calls out what she refers to as the “Tightrope” challenge. Women, she asserts, walk a line between being liked and not respected or respected and not liked. Often, for example, “office housework,” the administrative tasks that keep an office running but do not advance a career, default to women. If women devote their time to these tasks, more important work may not get done and they lose respect. At the same time, if women refuse to participate in the tasks, they become less likeable and, potentially, less likely to be promoted.
It’s a tricky situation—very much a tightrope—and the solution Williams proposes requires balance.
Instead of an “all or nothing” approach, Williams suggests strategically choosing to do some of the “office housework” and proposing alternative options for the rest. For example, a woman may agree to do one or two tasks and offer another way for the rest to be done. This solution allows a woman to be seen as a team player—she has demonstrated her commitment to the team by doing some of the office tasks while drawing firm boundaries that command respect and free up time to get to more important work.
Any organizational change is tough and takes time. But by acknowledging the systemic challenges women face in their careers and developing strategies to overcome them, more women will rise into leadership positions. Over time, this will start to erode existing biases so that, eventually, these strategies will not be necessary. We always have to start where we are and move forward, strategically, one step at a time.