How Gender Differences Are Reflected in Language in the Workplace - Essay Example

How Gender Differences are Reflected in Language in the Workplace Men and women living and working together bring about as much conflict as it does harmony. This stems from the gender differences that exist which may either complement or cause misunderstandings that affect their relationships. Over the years, the phenomenon of gender differences in language use has been studied by linguists and scholars interested in its effect on various areas of their lives. This paper will investigate how men and women differ in how they communicate in general and will later on focus on how such gender differences translates to the workplace. Sociolinguistic Subculture Approach Gender differences stem from childhood and how boys and girls are treated differently. Baby girls are considered delicate and fragile and are therefore treated as such, being exposed to language that is gentle and handled with utmost care. On the other hand, boys, expected to grow up to be strong and masculine, are exposed to power-filled language punctuated with strong tones (Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005). This example reflects the Sociolinguistic Subculture Approach which suggests that that boys and girls grow up in essentially different talk subcultures resulting from the differing expectations parents and peers direct toward them about acceptable ways to talk (Maltz and Borker, 1982). Leaper (1991) explains that at three years of age, little girls develop earlier in terms of language and this helps them explore relationships with those around them. Girls use language that demonstrates attentiveness, responsiveness, and support. Boys, in turn, use language that demand attention, give orders, and establish dominance (Leaper, 1991). They engage in group activities with other boys and test out their ‘high’ and ‘low’ status roles: “I’m the leader”, “you follow me”, etc. They establish positions among the group and they are apparently louder, more physical and less verbal than girls (Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005). By the age of 7, children have acquired gender constancy (Kohlberg & Zigler, 1967) and knowledge of gender-role stereotypes (Huston, 1983; Martin, 1989). As they transition to middle childhood, interaction strategies become more gender-differentiated. Whereas girls become more competent in collaborative strategies, boys stick to their reliance on domineering influence strategies. Bakan (1966) explained that boys are taught to value autonomy, competition and linear problem solving and such values are expressed by the encouragement of self-assertion and self-expansion (Mason, 1994). They grow up learning that information and communication relationships can be used to obtain power. On the other hand, girls are socialized to be more communal, valuing relationships and collaboration. Mason (1994) argued that the communal orientation is characterized by concern, selflessness, consideration for others and a desire to be one with them. Girls learn that communication is one avenue where relational bonds are strengthened, thus they learn to value it well (Chodorow, 1989). Adult Gender Differences in Language Use Tannen (cited in Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005), a professor of linguistics, theorized that as adults, men and women reproduce such behavior patterns. Men engage in one up strategies to position themselves in groups and women use talk to build harmonious relationships with each other. Men focus on facts instead of feelings while women are the opposite. They expect their feelings to be acknowledged and supported. “Women speak and listen for a language of connection and intimacy. Men speak and listen for a language of status and independence” (Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005, p.10). Research on communication has identified specific use of language to determine speaker’s confidence, assertiveness and efficiency in negotiations. Lakoffs (1978) has operationalized a tag question as “midway between an outright statement and yes-no question.. .the tag question seeks confirmation and thereby communicates an attitude of uncertainty (p. 54)." Examples are the additional “don’t you think so?” or “wasn’t it?” after stating an opinion. Disclaimers are defined as “introductory expressions that excuse, explain, or request understanding or forebearance” (Eakins and Eakins, 1977, p. 45). Examples are “You may not agree, but..” or “I’m no expert, but…”. Tag questions and disclaimers are usually used to “soften the blow” of an otherwise strong statement or opinion. Sometimes, the effect of using such is lessening the credibility of the point being made by the speaker. Closely related to disclaimers are qualifiers (also referred to as hedges), which are adverbs (e.g., "maybe," "perhaps," "sort of” ) that tend to weaken the strength of the statement presented. Most often, disclaimers and qualifiers are considered to be less directive speech evoked by those with less power in a situation (Lakoff, 1990). Interruptions may be classified as plain interruptions and unsuccessful interruptions. Pearson (1985) indicates that interruptions occur when a person "begins to speak before the last word that could suggest the end of the speakers statement, question, or comment (p. 197). Unsuccessful interruptions are those which no one responded to and the interrupted speaker continues to talk and keep the attention of the others. Interruptions are usually symptoms of assertive behavior in that the speaker attempts to be heard. Overlaps are simultaneous speech occurring very close to each other, like possible transition from one speaker to another. Zimmerman and West (1975) found that men overlap women more than women overlap men and concluded that overlaps are similar to interruptions as a means of asserting dominance. Back channels are minimal responses that signal the listeners encouragement and support, such as "yeah," "mm-hmm," and "right" (Kollock et al. 1985, p.39). Research suggests that back channels are mostly used by those with less authority to show deference to people with higher authority. The subculture approach argues that back channels may be a reflection of womens greater learned expressiveness, sociability, and showing of interest (Maltz and Borker 1982; Carli 1990). In relation to this, Kollock, Blumstein, and Schwartz’s (1985) study of couples in intimate relationships suggests that the more powerful partner was defined as the one who had more influence in decision-making relative to the other. Results indicated that, the more powerful partner demonstrated a higher rate of interrupting than the less powerful partner, regardless of gender. Also, the less powerful partner, had a higher rate of "back channels" than the more powerful partner Linguistic literature indicates that womens communication characteristically includes more intensifiers, implied imperatives, tag questions, politeness, wordiness, allowance of interruptions, disclaimers, qualifiers, and hesitations than mens language (Eakins & Eakins, 1976; Hewitt & Stokes, 1975; Pearson, 1985). Linguistics research confirms that women are more fluid with language and that women pay more attention to listening - for facts and feelings. On the other hand, mens language has been characterized as more assertive/aggressive, precise, and instrumental than womens language (Fitzpatrick & Bochner, 1981). They oppose, they joke, they use banter to undermine the speaker. Men’s language are often peppered with tabooed words and curses than women’s even if they are of the same educational level (Ning et al, 2010). Ahmad & Rethinam (2010) have also done studies comparing gender differences. They found that women ask more questions than men and agree with others more while men have more tendencies to challenge other people’s statements and argue with their own opinions. These behaviors are consistent with Gray’s (1992) beliefs that men interpret messages of other people according to their levels of dominance while women interpret them according to levels of supportiveness. When conversations turn out to reveal more emotions, thus being more intimate, Tannen (1990) asserts that women feel that talking to someone about their problems is the essence of connection and reflects the close relationship between them and the people they share their problems with. On the contrary, men interpret problem sharing as a request for a solution so they concentrate on that instead of dealing with the emotions being revealed. When women are involved in such scenarios, they would most likely feel cut off and their problem diminished because they may misinterpret the men to avoid being close to them because they focus on moving on with solutions to the problem. Thus, Tannen (1990) concludes that men and women feel different emotional responses to sympathy and advise due to their differing interpretations of each other’s behaviors. This may lead to misunderstanding and miscommunication. In terms of topics of conversation, women prefer personal issues such as family and friendships and their emotions. They engage others in the conversation by pegging them within the topic at hand. On the other hand, men prefer more abstract communication with general themes. They use linear language meaning what they say is organized chronologically through points. Women are more personal, divulging details of their experiences and even personal issues. They focus on their listeners’ relationships with them and their support in listening to the conversation (Kramarae and Treicher, 1983; Schaef, 1985). Gender Differences in Language Used in the Workplace In a corporate setting, Smeltzer and Watson (1986) did a study to investigate gender differences in communication during negotiations. They found out that women use significantly more disclaimers, interruptions, and attempted interruptions than men during collective bargaining sessions. However, no significant differences were found between men and womens use of tag questions. Apparently, the use of language may be specific to the situation at hand. Women generally use non-assertive communication, as they were raised to be that way. It is no wonder that they tend to use more tag questions and disclaimers. However, when they feel more self-confident, they use more assertive communication (Stake & Stake, 1979). Also, although early research findings suggest that men interrupt more often in conversations (Thorne & Henley, 1975; Zimmerman & West, 1975), more recent research, such as the one by Smeltzer and Watson (1986) suggest that highly educated women surpassed men in the number of interruptions they made. However, interruptions are not necessarily indications of dominant communication styles (Kennedy & Camden, 1983). Women in the workplace need to be aware of their use of tag questions, disclaimers, interruptions and the like, and should learn to use more assertive communication skills to overcome gender discrimination and make themselves heard and acknowledged in male-dominated situations. In everyday communication, especially in the workplace, requests for other people to do things are inevitable. Requests may be done in direct or indirect manners. Shams & Afghari (2011) explain that direct requests or imperatives state the desired action explicitly while indirect requests state the desired action implicitly. Indirect requests are used mainly to be polite because it diminishes the unpleasantness of the message in the request and order. It is also used to make one’s speech more interesting and achieve goals in a more friendly way. Thomas (1983) assumes that indirect requests increases the “force of the message communicated” (p. 143). Men and women also differ in how they get their message across. Women ask other people to do something for them more indirectly while men are more direct to the point (Shams & Afghari, 2011). In addition, Tannen (1994) explains that in conversations, men have a report style while women have a rapport style. Report styles aim to communicate facts, preserve independence and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social order. Rapport styles establish connections and build and maintain relationships. When people communicate, they adjust to the context of the situation and the language style of the people they communicate with and not necessarily the gender of the person. So, “a polite and empathic male will tend to be warmed up to on the basis of their being polite and empathic, rather than their being male” (Shams & Afghari, 2011, p. 281). Women value the relationship between perceived organizational support and communication with their colleagues more than men because they see their relationships as more communal and based on equality (Amason & Allen, 1997). At the same time, they find communication relationships with supervisors and top management as important due to the fact that they look for validation and self-worth from such authority figures (Fagot, 1985). Men, in contrast see the relationship between organizational support and information provided by their supervisors as important because they are predisposed towards personal accomplishment, competition and the pursuit of power (Monendas, 1992). They may view information derived from top management as tools to help them achieve their goals. In terms of how they use talk to further their goals, men may speak for a longer time than women in public situations and this may be interpreted as conveying dominance (Aries, 1976; Tannen, 1990). Women talk more in private settings in order to establish and maintain relationships and to show interest and participation (Tannen, 1990). There are also gender differences in non-verbal communication. Johnson (1994) studied males and females in various groupings and found out that men in same-sex groups have significantly lower rates of both smiling and laughing than women in same-sex groups. In terms of leader-subordinate conversations, female managers and subordinates have the highest rates of laughing in same and mixed sex groups. This supports the sub-cultural approach that women communicate in ways to preserve harmonious relationships. However, male managers and subordinates have higher rates of smiling and laughing in mixed than same-sex groups. And female subordinates have lower rates of smiling with male than female managers, while male subordinates with female managers have the highest rate of smiling. Obviously, the gender composition of a group clearly has an effect on nonverbal behaviors. One thing is confirmed, though. Women discriminate less between men and women in their expressions of smiling and laughing than men. It is inevitable to associate flirtatious behavior in inter-gender interactions. Abrahams (1994) defined flirtatious communications as “messages and behaviors perceived by a recipient as purposefully attempting to gain his or her attention and stimulate his or her interest in the sender, while simultaneously being perceived as intentionally revealing an affiliative desire” (p. 283). If the issue of flirtation in communication patterns were considered, Koeppel, Montagne-Miller, O’Hair and Cody (1993) found that men and women differed in their perceptions of flirtatiousness. Men’s perception of flirtatious and seductive behavior is strongly related to who initiated the interaction, while for women attribute flirtation to nonverbal displays. Gender Differences in Leadership Eagly (2007) has differentiated leadership of men and women under two major characteristics. Communal traits such as kindness, concern for others, warmth and gentleness are associated more with women while agentic traits such as confidence, aggressiveness and self-direction are associated more with men. Stereotypically, leadership is ascribed more with agentic traits, which means men are seen as more natural leaders, leaving women leaders at a disadvantage. This implies that women leaders face a double bind (Eagly & Carli, 2004) because they are expected to be both: communal leaders due to traits believed to be inherent in the female gender role as well as agentic leaders due to traits believed to be inherent in a leader. Balancing such traits may be a challenge for women leaders since these traits can counter each other. It is commonly believed that women lack the stereotypical agentic qualities of a good leader because they are not tough enough and do not take charge. However, if a woman leader displays agentic characteristics such as being directive and assertive, she is viewed as being unfeminine. Such a situation leaves women leaders with difficulties in finding an appropriate and effective leadership style (Eagly, 2007). Yoder (2001) suggested that an effective middle ground leadership for women is the coach/ teacher style, which epitomizes transformational leadership. This style has culturally feminine aspects such as “individualized consideration” behaviors (Hackman, Furniss, Hills, & Patterson, 1992), while being androgynous in nature. Hyde (2005) contends that female leaders are more transformational than male leaders. They exceeded men on individualized consideration, an aspect that encompasses supportive, encouraging treatment of subordinates. Further, Yoder (2001) reports certain behaviors that are gender appropriately effective. For example, for men leaders, sitting at the head of the table surrounded by a mixed-gender group would gain them the perception that they are leading the group. This only works for women if they are surrounded by an all-woman group and not by a mixed gender group. Men are considered “in character” when they exhibit competent assertiveness, meaning they ask for what they want, refuse what they don’t and express both positive and negative messages to others. It is more common for men to interrupt others, avoid tentative speech patterns with hedging (ex. “sort of”), disclaimers (e.g. “I may be wrong but…”), tag questions (… isn’t it?) and empty intensifiers (“so”, “really”), (Carli, 1990). Being dominant, autocratic or directive, self-promoting and creating a structure to guide group interaction give credence to male leadership but not women’s (Yoder, 2001). On the other hand, focusing on status-enhancement combined with status leveling as a way to balance power is associated more with female leadership (Yoder, 2001). Professionals are traditionally considered to exhibit masculine communication behavior such as rationality, power, decisiveness, and objectivity rather than so called feminine communication behavior (Bradley, 1981). Professional women are seen as less powerful in terms of communication. When they exhibit assertive language in the workplace, their image is transformed to one who is more aggressive or “out-of-role” and if this may jeopardize their effectiveness especially when they manifest their assertiveness above accepted levels (Kennedy & Camden, 1983). Wahrman and Pugh (1974) agree and found that women who displayed non-conforminst behavior early on were more disliked and deemed less desirable as a coworker by male group members. This implies that women leaders should bide their time and ensure their position in the group before attempting to execute innovative changes in the organization. It remains that female leaders encounter difficulties in masculine settings (Eagly, 2007). They find it a challenge to embody authority since they have to contend with expectations and criticisms that they lack the toughness and competitiveness necessary to succeed as a leader. Under these circumstances, women find difficulty in building helpful relationships and gaining acceptance in influential networks (Timberlake, 2005). Such hurdles make it doubly challenging for women to advance up in a highly male-dominated hierarchy and would take an especially strong, skillful and persistent woman who can maintain her confidence and ignore threats to her self-esteem and doubts and criticisms as to her abilities to lead successfully. Women who exhibited superior competence on a task as compared to the skills of the group earned more influence than women who were less competent. Those who demonstrated skills equivalent to that of a male partner are sure to gain the respect they expect and rightfully deserve (Pugh & Wahrman, 1983). Insights of Author Men and women are wired differently and this includes how they communicate to others. This paper has shown how each gender has been raised differently depending on what society has established for them. From the time they were children, boys and girls were handled differently and so with expectations of how they use language. Girls were supposedly prim and proper in how they speak and careful with how they make others feel. They were the assigned “nurturers”. While boys were supposed to be “tough” and strong, so their language reflects it too. As they grow older, stereotypes get reinforced. Gender differences increase, widening communication gap between the genders. When women open up with her troubles, she is more after the emotional support that she can derive from others. If men are the listeners to the rant session of women, they immediately comb their brains for solutions to the women’s problems and may gloss over providing emotional support to them, which they needed in the first place. Much conflict ensues from this but unknown to the parties, they are just behaving the way nature has designed them to. Research in the past decades have illuminated how different men and women use language to suit their needs. Consistent with their natures, words, inflection and even tone of voice are used to their favor. Men are more direct and firm while women are more soft and wavering in order to adjust to the reactions of people they talk to. Tannen has made strides in analyzing gender differences and how these are used in various contexts. In the workplace, men continue to find more dominant ways to present themselves especially with women co-workers. The double standard is maintained. Although the stereotype is women talk more than men, Coates (1996) reports that from research, men and boys talk more in mixed-gender groups than women and girls. Specifically, the average amount of time men talk in such contexts is approximately twice as long as the amount women will talk. However, if women talk more than one third of the available time, they are regarded as talking too much. The hard work of researchers on effective communication will only bear fruit if men and women follow their advise and learn ways to compromise on gender differences. It is in understanding where each other is coming from and acknowledging the fact that they are inherently different that true harmony will set in. Men and women may come from opposite poles, but when they come together and agree to be on the same side, even for just certain situations, then there is hope that gender differences in communication and leadership will eventually subside. Research is truly valuable in making people more aware of their language patterns and behaviors and how these affect them and the people they deal with. It also guides them on what they can do to make them better and more effective speakers. Being armed with this knowledge from gender and language research, men and women can use it to their advantage in advancing in the workplace while investing in harmonious relationships with the opposite gender. References Abrahams, M.F. (1994) “Perceiving Flirtatious Communication: An Exploration of the Perceptual Dimensions Underlying Judgments of Flirtatiousness”, The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 31, No. 4, 283-292 Ahmad, K.Z. & Rethinam, K. (2010) Mars, Venus and Gray: Gender Communication, International Business Research, Vol. 3, No. 2; Amason, P. and Allen, M.W. (1997) Intraorganizational Communication, Perceived Organizational Support, and Gender, Sex Roles, VoL 37, Nos. 11/12, Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally. Bradley, P.H. (1981). “The folk-linguistics of womens speech: An empirical Examination”, Communication Monographs, 48, 73-90. Carli, L. L. (1990). "Gender, Language, and Influence." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:941-51 Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT; Yale University Press. Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk; Conversation Between Women Friends. Blackwell: Oxford.Cole, N. D. (2004)Gender differences in perceived disciplinary fairness. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(3), 254-279. Eagly, A.H. (2007) Female Leadership Advantage And Disadvantage: Resolving The Contradictions, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31 (2007), 1–12. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2004).Women and men as leaders. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 279– 301). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eakins, B. and Eakins, G. (1977) "Verbal Turn-Taking and Exchanges in Faculty Dialogue." Pp. 53-62 in The Sociology of the Languages of American Women, edited by B. L. Dubois and I. Crouch. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press. Fagot, B. I. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principle; Another step towards Understanding sex role development. Developmental Psychology, 2, 1097- 1104. Fitzpatrick, M.A., & Bochner, A. (1981). “Perspectives on self and others: Male-female differences in perceptions of communication behavior”. Sex Roles, 7, 523-534. Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars and women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and getting what you want in your relationship. New York: Harper Collins. Hackman, M. Z., Furniss, A. H., Hills, M. J., & Patterson, T. J. (1992). Perceptions of gender-role characteristics and transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 311– 319. Hewitt, John P., and Randall Stokes. 1975. "Disclaimers." American Sociological Review 40: 1-11. Huston, A. G. (1983) “Sex-typing”, In E. M. Hetberington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development (pp. 387-467). New York: Wiley. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. AmericanPsychologist, 60, 581–592. Johnson, C. (1994) “Gender, Legitimate Authority, And Leader-Subordinate Conversations”, American Sociological Review, 1994, Vol. 59, 122-135 Kennedy, C.W., & Camden, C.T. (1983) “Interruptions and Nonverbal Gender Differences”, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 91-108. Kohlberg, L., & Zigler, E. (1967). “Tbe impact of cognitive maturity on the development of sex-role attitudes in the years 4 to 8.” Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 89-165. Koeppel, L.B., Montagne-Miller, Y., O’Hair, D., & Cody, M.J. (1993) “Friendly? Flirting? Wrong?” In P.J. Kalbfieisch (ed.) Interpersonal Communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 13-32) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kollock, P., Blumstein, P. and Schwartz, P. (1985) "Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties." American Sociological Review. 50: 34- 46 Kramarae, & Treicher (1983). Gender, language and the workplace: an exploratory study. Women in Management Review, 22(4), 319-336. Lakoff, R. (1978). Language and womans place. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Lakoff, R. (1990) Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. New York: Basic Books. Leaper, C. (1991) “Influence and Involvement in Childrens Discourse: Age, Gender, and Partner Effects”, Child Development, 1991, 62, 797-811 Maltz, D.N, and Borker, R.A. (1982) "A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication."Pp. 196-216 in Language and Social Identity, edited by J. J. Gumperz. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University. Martin, G. L. (1989). “Childrens use of gender-related information in making social judgments”, Developmental Psychology, 25, 80—88. Mason, E. S. (1994). Gender differences in job satisfaction. The Joumal of Social Psychology,135, 143-151. Monedas, M. (1992). Men communicating with women; Self-esteem and power. In L. A. M. Perry, Turner, L. H., & H. M. Sterk (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing gender The links among communication, language, and gender. Albany; State University of New York Press. Ning, H., Dai, X. & Zhang, F. (2010)On Gender Difference in English Language and Its Causes, Asian Social Science, Vol. 6, No. 2 Pearson, J. C. (1985) Gender and Communication. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Rasquinha, D. & Mouly, S. (2005) “When Women Talk: What Do Leaders Sound Like?”, Organisational Culture, June 2005. Shams, R. & Afghari, A. (2011) Effects of Culture and Gender in Comprehension of Speech Acts of Indirect Request, English Language Teaching Vol. 4, No. 4; Smeltzer, L.R. & Watson, K.W. (1986) “Gender Differences In Verbal Communication During Negotiations”, Communication Research Reports Volume 3 Stake, J.E., & Stake, M.N. (1979). “Performance--Self-esteem and dominance in mixed sex dyads”, Journal of Personality, 47, 23-84. Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91- 112. Thome, B. and, Henley, N. (1975) "Difference and Dominance: An Overview of Language, Gender, and Society." Pp. 5-42 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by B. Thome and N. Henley. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Timberlake, S. (2005). Social capital and gender in the workplace.Journal of Management Development, 24, 34–44. Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828. Zimmerman, D H. and West, C. (1975), "Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation." Pp. 105-29 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by B. Thome and N. Henley. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Read More