Women are quickly seen as "too emotional" at work. And are therefore taken less seriously. But is that really true? And if so, should women change – or the world of work? Professor and coach Babette Brinkmann on suitable strategies.
The project manager of an international consortium tells me about his idea. "Babette, I will have the employment contracts written that women are not allowed to cry at work, especially not in the appraisal interview. They have to cry somewhere else, otherwise nobody can work! "
Emotionality is considered private and not in line with the world of work
The request is absurd and legally not possible, but the wish and need that Sebastian S. expresses here are real and often encountered. Sebastian, in his late 30s, heads a huge dam project in Africa at a young age, he is responsible for several hundred employees from five countries, but when a woman cries, "then I just don't know what to say anymore. "Risks, financial and technical challenges are nothing compared to the hardship Sebastian gets into when employees become clearly emotional.
I've told this example many times and got a lot of laughs. But the serious and annoying truth is: The line of emotional expression expected of women in the job is super fine. Women are considered emotional, and emotionality as private and not in line with the world of work. Crying, being filled with enthusiasm, emotion, excited anticipation … all of this leads to a woman being taken less seriously in her job and no longer eligible for leadership or promotion. The thought "typical woman" is still firmly chained to "incompatible with power and influence".
Men not only consider themselves factual, but they have also made this kind of objectivity the generally accepted standard. Yours – of course, they are available! – Emotionality does them much less harm. And that, although they have created a niche that is neither sympathetic nor particularly useful for the business: Emotions such as aggression, anger or joy in power are so clearly masculinethat they are accepted in companies and the public – criticized, but accepted. Again and again you can hear about managers, artists, trainers and other men of public life that he is "known to be quite a tyrant" – but that is not in any fundamental contradiction to power and success.
Objectivity instead of emotionality
This niche does not exist for women either. Aggression is still considered hardly excusable and unfeminine among women. An aggressive language shaped the style of former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. A comparable tone was the undoing of SPD leader Andrea Nahles. In one and the same company and through the eyes of one and the same person, a woman can be chalked up for an emotional appearance and a colleague can benefit from an emotional appearance.
Another example from my advice: The owner of a medium-sized company, Matthias, would like to retire from operational management. Together we develop the way to the goal. As his successor in the management, he had chosen the head of the legal department, Clara. She should be responsible in the management for the areas of personnel, IT and finance. But at our next meeting I'll be surprised by news. Not Clara, but a long-standing advisor has been appointed. A man recognized as a financial expert however, his style is controversial.
What happened? Matthias explained his decision to me: "Clara would certainly be very suitable and is well networked in the house. But in the end we (the owner family) thought that she is just too emotional. There was another session like that, where she bit into her ideas, and when she gets excited, the emotions run away with her, she gets loud and excited and doesn't find the end. The objectivity then no longer fits. "
Women are judged on emotions, men are not
Aha, I think and say: "The woman was suddenly too emotional for you and is replaced by a man who is known for his harsh and often bossy loud tone? You already know that anger, irritability, etc. are also emotions? "-" Yes, yes, but it's something else, isn't it? "Matthias looks at me. It seems to me that" something else "is the emotionality of the woman compared to the emotionality of the man. It stands in the way of one, not of the other.
I had witnessed a phenomenon that numerous studies illustrate well. In 2017, Kathryn Heath and Jill Flinn from the University of North Carolina evaluated more than a thousand feedback logs from female and male managers and were able to show two things.
First: Women are rated according to how they deal with emotions, men not. More than half of all women's assessments included HOW friendly, warm, harsh, or dismissive they were doing, while the feedback for the male leaders was about WHAT they are doing. That difference is annoying enough. Because we all learn – and that is especially true in our job – it depends on WHAT you do. This pattern becomes really disastrous in connection with the second result:
Second: An emotional demeanor (regardless of the type of emotion) makes women appear less credible and less convincing in the job. It is enough that a woman is perceived as "more emotional than men" to be judged negatively.
Typical woman, typical man
That's a tough piece: First we stare (women as well as men, by the way) in female executives to every emotional impulse like a rabbit to a snake, and when we discover emotional behavior, we say, "I knew it, typically, way too emotional."
Incredibly, there is no change in sight. The stereotypes about what is typically male and typically female, and above all, what makes a great woman or a great man seem to be immune to digitization, globalization, modernization and enlightenment. Research results of the last 30 years paint the same picture again and again: A great woman is warm, trustworthy, socially competent, communicative, open and empathetic. A great man is personable, assertive, direct, active and self-confident.
You can guess three times which characteristics are listed more often when asked about the ideal manager. Right, it's the properties of the "great man"But since we have to be convincing in our job as a person and as an expert, women are faced with a challenge that men do not face.
Please smile!
Women have to bring two different and quite contradicting images under one roofin order to be perceived positively and competently as a woman and manager. Great emotions very quickly become doomed here, they are considered too feminine, too soft, too private.
Conversely, a powerful, demanding demeanor leads to irritation: "Hair on your teeth", "governess", "diva", "complicated" are Attributions for which there is hardly any male equivalent. The expectation of women has hardly changed in 70 years. "She" should be friendly, communicative, balancing, in no way complicated or hysterical.
And she should smile! She was "a happy woman, a friendly woman," said RBB presenter Jörg Thadeusz, uncomprehendingly, to his talk show guest Professor Dr. Maja Göpel. She has a doctorate in political economics and transformation research and has written a much discussed bestseller ("Rethinking our world: An invitation"). But hello: "Why are you looking so seriously at the cover?" He asked her. He feels "not advertised".
Power makes women suspicious
A fine example of that "warmth competency theory": When we become clear about how we "find" someone, we make two judgments about that person at the same time. How warm / cordial do I find this person, and how competent do I find him or her? In private life, this applies to both men and women. But different rules apply in the jobAs the management professor Margarita Mayo impressively showed in a study from 2016: women are only judged to be self-confident and confident in their work if they appear competent and warm. It is enough for men to exude competence. A smile is not expected, so it is not lacking either.
Power suits men "per se". If they then understand something about the matter, we are already satisfied.
Power makes women suspicious. We only feel comfortable with them when they smile, are friendly and approachable. That should be "a gender question"? Asks Jörg Thadeusz in surprise in the interview. Yes that's it.
The question now is, as is so often the case: should the world change or should women change?
Women must be the norm in all positions
Of course, the world should change, especially the world of work. And then it changes, I am convinced of that when women are the norm in all positions. But there is still a long way to go before this normal case is reached. And even if narrow ideas stand in the way of women in their careers: Ultimately, these stereotypical role expectations are neither good for men nor women.
So, if you feel like it, lean on and support women who do it. When you experience and think a woman: "Good idea, but somehow embarrassing, too much, too loud, too tearful or too vulgar""She won't reach her goal this way" – then this is exactly the right moment to get to the bottom of your own entrenched perceptions. Support women who do things very differently than you do yourself or who do it differently from the classic role expectations. That can only lead to more freedoms for all of us.
Sebastian couldn't change the women or the employment contracts. I suggested that he read Alice Walker's "The Color Purple". In this book, the protagonist says: "I can cry and lift a coffin." And with this sentence in his luggage, he managed to get into a conversation with the women whose tears he feared: How much coffin carry, how much conversation, how much argument – despite tears.
Always "so emotional"?
Ways out of the dilemma
We don't change the world in a day. But already today there is Tips on how we can express our enthusiasm or anger so that they underline what we have to say:
- In general, the following applies at work: Name emotions instead of acting them out. (Saying "That annoys me" instead of reacting annoyed. "I think that's an insolence" works best in a steady, calm voice.)
- Use emotions purposefully and deliberately. Relate to the facts that inspire or excite you. Mix euphoria or indignation with numbers, arguments. When the enthusiasm is great: Say it clearly and proudly, then get back to the point.
- When something monstrous has happened, you are very angry or hurt: take your time. React with a delay. Well-founded silence is not consent. ("The way it was decided here, it doesn't fit at all for me. I will put this on the agenda again in the near future.") And when you can take your time, perhaps with the advice of a good friend, put your reaction together come back to it. Be clear and precise and without belittling or denying your anger or indignation.
- Do you know your audience, familiarize yourself with them and make them familiar with your ideas. A stable basis for discussion can tolerate more irritation.
- Proofread e-mails and letters! Gladly from a man who is familiar with power (games). Five-page angry emails have already been deleted on five lines – and that wasn't to my detriment.
Prof. Dr. Babette Brinkmann is a coach and professor for organizational and group psychology at the TH Köln. She advises women, men and organizations on issues relating to career paths, cooperation and leadership – and mostly smiles. A colleague recently said to her: "You always smile, you have a real business woman face." In moments like this she is happy to know: "Doing it right" is not an option for women anyway.
Would you like to read more about the topic and exchange ideas with other women? Then take a look at the "All about the job forum" BRIGITTE community past
Get the BRIGITTE as a subscription – with many advantages. You can order them directly here.