Heidi Rozen was a successful venture capitalist. Frank Flynn, a professor at Columbia Business School, used her resume in a now-famous experimental study to see what types of bias evaluators would exhibit based solely on the sex of the applicant being reviewed. Half of his students were given Heidi’s resume with her real name. The other half were given the identical resume but with the name Howard substituted. Their findings are the basis of the Heidi-Howard Principle.
[S]tudents felt Heidi was significantly less likable and worthy of being hired than Howard and perceived her as more “selfish” than Howard. Deborah Gruenfeld, of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, cited the same study, adding that “the more assertive a student found the female venture capitalist to be, the more they rejected her.” The essence is that research has demonstrated a negative correlation for women between power and success. For men, the relationship is positive, i.e., successful men are perceived as more powerful and are revered. A fundamental challenge to women’s leadership arises from the mismatch between the qualities traditionally associated with leaders and those traditionally associated with women.” The assertive, authoritative, and dominant behaviors that people link with leadership tend not to be viewed as attractive in women.
Sheryl Sandberg coined the term “Ambition Gap” to explain the side effects of women being discouraged from positions of power and success, leadership roles. Despina Tsagari, a successful woman who has served many leadership positions – her last assignment was Country Manager for Beiersdorf pointed out ways in which women have an advantage in leadership roles:
“Women usually act more than male leaders based on their innate strengths (e.g. creativity and collaboration) in their everyday approach to work.
They tend to lead from a more interactive, cooperative style which often results in strengthening the team spirit approach, inspiring a higher degree of commitment to strive to achieve the business’ goals. They bring a different perspective based on a different set of life experiences. But the most important contribution for me, is that a female leader would rely more on her emotional intelligence (EI) i.e. self-awareness, managing our emotions, empathy, and social skill. Women tend to have an edge over men when it comes to these basic skills.”
Kathryn Stanley, professor of Organizational and Leadership studies discussed the biases that hold women back and create a double bind for ambitious women:
“The main challenge for women in leadership positions is managing the fundamental attribution errors made about them due to gender biases in society. For example, when women leaders are as assertive as men; they are seen as less likable. The fundamental attribution error is that when women lead with a confident direct style, they are self-serving. Conversely, when men lead in this same manner they are well intended strong leaders. Therefore women must work harder to be seen as well intended, likable leaders. To do this they must spend more time building relationships, especially with other female peers and subordinates. Because they have to spend more time chatting to build relationships they are sometimes judged by male supervisors as wasting time at the water cooler or passive leaders afraid to command. This double-bind forces them to walk a tight rope.
She adds the solution to the problem, but it depends on the good-will and awareness of those currently in power:
as with any underprivileged group, women leaders have learned to influence without authority. Doing this requires competency in negotiation, stakeholder analysis, dialog, entrepreneurialism and strategic thinking. All of these qualities serve their organizations very well. The economy of the world and the evolution of our global community will benefit from not only including more women but also people of color and anyone who does not fit the Type A, tall white male stereotype of a leader. True inclusion will only occur when women and minorities are no longer seen as being the ones who have to change (the identified patients). The responsibility for accessing diverse talent lies with leaders who hold the power now. They need to open the door and be more expansive in deciding who sits at the table.”
What makes the key difference is that people who have actually had female managers think highly of them. Although a study showed that of the 46% who said they preferred one sex or the other as a manager, 72% favored a male boss, among those who had previously had a female boss, they did not rate women lower than men as managers. In other words, what made the difference was experience and familiarity, exposure to women as leaders.
That Was Then, This Is Now
Anderson Cooper ran an updated version of the Heidi/Howard Study ten years later.
He found that “this time around, students rated the female entrepreneur as more likable and desirable as a boss than the male.” The woman (Catherine) was rated as 8.0 on a likeability scale, and the man (Martin) was rated as 7.6. Close, but she had the edge. 83% said they would like to work for Catherine and only 65% wanted to work for Martin.
Strangely, where fictional Catherine took a hit was “trust.” The powerful woman got 6.4 whereas the identical man was rated 7.2. Students were hard pressed to explain why they viewed a successful women as less trustworthy. Men seem “more genuine” while women are seen as having “an ulterior motive.” Women are seen as “trying too hard.” Women are seen as having more responsibilities in other aspects of their lives, unlike the men (who apparently have the luxury of walking through life sans entanglements). One man decried attractive women (“hot chicks”) having an advantage in the workplace that was unfair; presumably, an unattractive woman was allowed to be more qualified than he was, but an attractive one made him suspicious of unfair hiring practices.
Hillary vs. Howard
A recent post in Daily Kos talked about the sexism inherent in claims that Hillary is dishonest. The author starts by talking about the Hillary Haters in general:
To conservatives she is a radical left-wing insurgent who has on multiple occasions been compared to Mikhail Suslov, the Soviet Kremlin’s long-time Chief of Ideology. To many progressives (you know who you are), she is a Republican fox in Democratic sheep’s clothing, a shill for Wall Street who doesn’t give a damn about the working class. The fact that these views could not possibly apply to the same person does not seem to give either side pause. Hillary haters on the right and the left seem perfectly happy to maintain their mutually incompatible delusions about why she is awful. The only thing both teams seem to share is the insistence that Hillary is a Machiavellian conspirator and implacable liar, unworthy of society’s trust.
And this claim of unabated mendacity is particularly interesting, because while it is not the oldest defamation aimed at Hillary, it is the one that most effortlessly glides across partisan lines. Indeed, for a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate, the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true.
The author goes on to cite several supporting examples. Rather than replaying them here, I encourage you to read the article. Politfact, the fact checking group, has found that Hillary’s statements have been more accurate than any other candidate in the 2016 election season, and she is more honest than most (but not all) politicians it has ever checked throughout the years.
Jill Abramson of The Guardian, Wall Street Journal and formerly the New York Times gave Hillary this back-handed compliment:
“As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.”
The author concludes:
My current conviction is that the main fuel that powers the anti-Hillary crowd is sexism. And yes I’m serious. So go ahead and roll your eyes. Get it over with. But I think the evidence supports my view, and I’ve seen no other plausible explanation. And just to be clear, I don’t think it’s ONLY sexism. But I do think that this is the primary force that has generated and maintained most of the negative narratives about Hillary.
The author put together the following graph showing that whenever Hillary has run for higher office, she takes a hit for it in approval ratings; she is punished for her ambition. She is held to a different standard than her male counterparts.
The author concludes with a similar prediction to the Heidi/Howard follow up.
Hillary is nobody’s idea of perfect. Fine. But in my view if a man with her qualifications were running in the Democratic primary, Bernie would have been done before he even started. And if a man with her qualifications had been running for the Republicans, they’d be anointing him the next Reagan while trying to sneak his face onto Mount Rushmore.
Most of the people who hate Hillary when she’s running for office end up liking her just fine once she’s won. And I have every confidence that history will repeat itself again this November. As for myself, I have been watching Presidential elections since Nixon. And never in my life has there been an easier or more obvious choice than now. Trump is not merely a bad choice, he is (as many leading Republicans have already admitted) a catastrophic choice, unfit in every possible way for the office of the Presidency.
Given the wealth of strong women who have led other nations, I for one can’t wait to see what happens when our nation has experienced a woman’s leadership at the highest level. Will Republicans give her her due? Perhaps we are too partisan for that, but at least we will see that merely being a woman is no reason to bar someone from leadership.
Wheat & Tares 
Interesting. So Hilary never opposed marriage equality after all. 😉
When I saw the title to this post my first thought was, “I bet Hawkgrrrl wrote it” 🙂
I have been lucky enough to have worked in the past for a corporation that was blessed with a great female leaders, even the CEO. So I have been able to get more comfortable with female leaders.
I will note that this is something that is near impossible to occur within the church. One minor exception would be if you are a male primary teacher. The presidency you serve under is all women. But even with that experience if you show up each week and give a lesson that keeps the kids in control without any parent complaints, the only interaction you have with them is them giving you a fridge magnet that says, “we love our primary teachers” and maybe an occasional cookie. It isn’t like you have to take a lot of directions/orders from the presidency.
At work I have seen the described sexism myself over and over. I see the vast majority of women sense this sexism even if they are not conscience of it. I have hardly meet a woman in the workplace that I don’t feel needs to get a good dose of self-confidence to be more successful. I have joined the Women’s leadership council to do what I can to help (and really have to sit on my hands not to mansplain things).
But then come to Hillary. I find it a bit more complex than just sexism. In some cases I disagree with some of her goals and I do think messed up on the email issue to the point of it technically being a criminal act. But given the choice of Trump vs Hillary – easy decision in my mind. Hillary will get my vote (my first vote for a democrat for president). I am a bit excited that we will then be able to move on and realize (like many other countries have) that a women president isn’t that much different. I also figure no matter who gets elected, we have enough checks and balances to curb any one idiot from taking the whole country off the rails.
“I also figure no matter who gets elected, we have enough checks and balances to curb any one idiot from taking the whole country off the rails.” That has hitherto been my belief, but I’m not sure it’s true in Trump’s case. He seems to have the depth of knowledge of a Sarah Palin and the social graces of an adolescent Vladmir Putin. Sarah Palin was enough to scare me off McCain (along with his lack of poker face).
I thought the contrast between Petraeus’ misdeeds and Hillary’s were telling. I had also wondered about the adultery charge since it figured into his leaking information which is (I assume) why the military considers it a court-martial offense. How is he more trustworthy? That’s either a sexist double standard or partisan prejudice or both.
I find it hard to compare generalities with specific situations, because of the complexity of so many factors.
The studies and statistics and the Heidi-Howard study is pretty obvious that prejudice and bias exists. I don’t doubt it, and don’t understand it.
But in real life so many things are going on. Hillary is distrusted because she lies, and she is a politician. Not because she is a woman. Her husband was attacked for that too and is a scoundrel. So, it seems equally fair to criticize her as much as Bill is attacked, based on what they’ve done not based on gender. The specific situation clouds the argument because Hillary isn’t squeaky clean.
Similarly, and at the same time, Trump is distrusted and seen to have ulterior motives, those qualities the studies used to describe women leaders. So…those qualities don’t fit the gender discussion. They are simply Trump.
In other words, those qualities fit men and women. Examples of both can be used to support either argument. Making specific application to this election race of just 2 people is pretty difficult.
Only experience I have had is my current employer has way more women and women leaders, and is 1000 times a healtheir organization to work for. It can’t just be because I work with more women, but perhaps the organization is healthy enough to promote more women. Kind of a chicken and egg thing.
I really wish trump didn’t get this far. I don’t know how it happened. But I wish we had Hillary vs Condoleezza Rice or some qualified woman leader to make the comparison of women leaders more real.
I also agree there are checks and balances, but I am also terrified at how Trump has changed things. Perhaps he isn’t able to directly do things, but when people support him and he gets ratings and votes…that changes how other politicians consider doing things to succeed. Look how quickly Rubio started emulating Trump. So, checks and balances don’t protect against shifting socially accepted norms and values, especially ones the masses cheer for. That scares me.
“Padme: So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.”
Trump is as scary as Palpatine, who also worked through and over checks and balances.
Hillary will be the next President. And life will roll on.
In the corporate world, as more and more leaders show strong leadership and successful qualities, prejudice will melt away as ignorance that doesnt hold up to experience and reality. It will take time. My woman boss now is the best boss I’ve ever had.
The worst thing an African-American politician can do, is called “passing.” This is political suicide. Passing is when a politician pretends not to be black, when they are light-skinned or mixed race.
A dozen years ago I attended a conference at a liberal New England college. The book store had a robust section on LGTB literature. One of the most interesting books was an extensive documentation of Hillary Clinton’s years in college and included a chapter about her women sexual partners. It featured numerous pictures of her in romantic situations that would be extremely compromising to a audience valuing only traditional sexual relationships and would definitely never be published in the Ensign.
This issue is central today. President Obama has switched his political rhetoric on this issue as the acceptance of gay marriage went from far less than 50% to far more than 50% during the few years he has been in office. He is trying to force school across the nation to build more bathrooms because of these issues.
Hillary Clinton’s failure to acknowledge her bisexuality is perhaps the most glaring example of her lack of integrity. She is “passing” on her sexual preference. The failure of the so-called free media for not bringing this to wider attention is disturbing.
It would not gain her many votes since the LTGB community is already behind her or at least against any of her possible opponents. It would cost her votes in the crucial middle of the field. The political end justifies the means, as long as we keep the dunces opposed to us in the dark.
I would vote for an openly bisexual woman with integrity and consistency on most issues before I would vote for Hillary Clinton. Maybe it would not be so easy for people to appear to be sexist and biased against Hillary if she wasn’t so dishonest in so many areas.
It is tragic that our first Black president has turned out to be basically inept. Easily the single greatest political disappointment of my life. It will be doubly tragic if our first woman president is even more flawed. At some point they will bring either themselves or the country or both to ruin.
Because of the electoral college this election will be settled in a few swing states (that is if it is even close at all). If you don’t live in one of those swing states and feel like you have to hold your nose to vote for either candidate in the major political parties, then it is time to vote for a THIRD PARTY out of principle.
The Third Party candidates are nothing to be proud of either.
This election is not about party affiliation, Dems vs Republicans. It is about ideaology and the survival of the country.
Obama is not inept. He did exactly as planned and Clinton will continue on with the plan.
Clinton voters are supporting communism and the dissolution of the USA, suppression of Christianity, support of Sharia law, killing of gays, etc. Clinton, Obama, the Democrats and most Republicans in Washington DC are communists, doing the bidding of the elite communist fascist totalitarian globalists.
Like I said, ideaology and not party affiliation.
I appreciate the thoughtful post and the research presented. But I hate the “ambition gap” crap. Some women do not seek to be CEO or President NOT because they lack ambition, but because our discipleship leads us to have ambition in different directions. Maybe having a child, or more than one child, or serving voluntarily in the church or community.
Our USAmerican society will not have true equality until the work that women have done for umpteen generations is respected as much as the work that men have done. Unfortunately, a lot of the “ambition gap” rhetoric is aimed at pushing women only to pursue the work that men have done outside the home, and recognizing only those kind of accomplishments as worthwhile.
I totally support women in pursuing whatever life goal they think is right for them. Because I appreciate the prejudice that many women face in the workforce, I try to support them: Whenever I have to buy a car, seek a healthcare provider, consult an attorney or whatever professional service, I always look for a female first. And I will vote for Hillary (admittedly not a stretch since I am a Democrat).
But in my own career, I have not gotten a lot of support from female bosses for my own ambitions to be a household manager, parent, helpful grandmother and community volunteer. I have been able to keep a part-time schedule only because I have certain skills that nobody else on campus has. Without that, I would be forced to accept a full-time position that would leave me feeling frazzled, or quit employment entirely. Lots of bitchy complaints from female bosses that I lack ambition and am being a bad role model to younger women.
In the world I would like to see, ALL ambition is recognized. Young people would be encouraged to think about whether their future career offered viable part-time options so that both parents could be employed part-time and share child-rearing duties (always keeping in mind that the burden of gestation and lactation may fall more heavily on women because of the unfairness of biology until uterine replicators are perfected).
One of the side effects of male normative thinking underlying “ambition gap” is that it is unnecessarily difficult for fulltime parents to re-enter the workforce. If their work at home was respected as working in another field instead of the common lie of “not working,” it would not be such an uphill struggle and parents of both genders would have more choices.