Leading the Sexes to Successful Communication
by Shirley Ryan
Whenever I hear the book mentioned, Men are
from Mars & Women
are from Venus, by John Gray, I cringe a little. I must say, I‘m
uncomfortable around the whole polarization between gender thing, even
though I accept that the dynamics between men and women are sometimes
disparate around communication. Fast forwarding, I admit that there
are some gaps in style, and that they do create challenges in the workplace
as well as home.
Some of those differences began early on, when
we learned our values surrounding communication as we were growing
up. Those beliefs generated a different kind of culture between men
and women. What is perceived as differences, besides biology, is really
a set of beliefs based on different operational rules.
We grew up using these rules learned through play,
and the rules are reflected in the way we think, communicate, and problem
solve as adults today. Now why do we need to know this and how does
it affect leadership and family systems? Easy to deduce, if we lead
the opposite sex or work with them in any way, we will want to know
and use those differences to our advantage, now don’t we? Because today’s
corporate teams need to work together. Productivity depends on leading
our teams and our families in ways that make everyone successful. The
way to make that happen is to get people communicating effectively
across the culture of gender.
The first time I shared some cross gender communication techniques in
a management workshop, I was talking to a group of upper level managers.
Two men sitting beside each other were good friends, at the same level
in the organization and equally educated. We were talking about communication
and they were nodding. I wanted to make a point about assumptions in
communication. I looked around and noticed the women were also nodding,
so I asked the men what did their nodding mean to them. Well, of course
they said they agreed with me.
However, when I asked the women what their nodding meant to them.
They said with a knowing smile that they were not agreeing at all, that
they were
“following what I was saying” or perhaps “bonding with
me,” but definitely not agreeing. These two managers looked shocked,
and then looked at each other puzzled as the light dawned on their personal
life. When men see women nod and think they are agreeing they are assuming
a great deal. This is why men tend to see women as waffling on subjects,
because they appear to change their minds. They are not waffling, since
they never agreed in the first place.
So how does it happen that we evolve differently? Although it
was not a sinister plot, we were trained this way through childhood play.
Even though children’s play is less rigidly programmed then it
has been in the past, it is still a good place to get this conditioning.
Everyone who was a child, knows a child, or has children knows that most
girls grow up playing out family scenarios through the use of human likenesses
like dolls, or using miniature replicas from the animal kingdom such
as horse and dog families, etc. Their focus is less on power, and more
on sharing, it is centered on involvement, and they are looking mostly
for creativity, and buy in. Essentially, there are no bosses playing
house…
Men on the other hand as boys’ play games that are more hierarchical
and rule-based. They have the rules of war, of sports, etc. with an emphasis
on power, hierarchy, command and control. They learned to be aggressive
through their play. I remember trying to exclude guns as toys in my household
in the early 70’s. My 5 year old son just ate his sandwich into
the shape of a gun and joyfully popped off imaginary villains around
the kitchen table! Testosterone is just as much a reality as estrogen…
That said, we can see how children get messages from institutions that
project a leadership role. Looking at the Boys Scout Oath they learned: I will
do my duty and it shows clearly how boys are expected to act.
On the other hand, girls grow up with what we think are also leadership-based
training programs and grow with the Girl Scout Oath that states I will
try to do my duty. What kind of mixed message is this? And this
is only one instance! The rest of their lives women end up using disclaimers
such as I am not sure, this may not make sense, sort of maybe, perhaps.
In addition they use tags at the end of sentences to induce involvement
such as OK, what do you think, huh? Looking through the lens of
the other genders’ culture, the perception is that of either hostility
or apathy when working together.
While these skill sets are useful in some situations,
it is important to choose what works best for each instance and not
give into a one size fits all mentality. Remember that if your only tool is a hammer
all challenges will be seen as a nail. While in an emergency, power and
direction is needed: war and surgery are examples, but limiting our toolbox
causes problems for both gender. Neither good or bad nor right or wrong,
it sets a certain operating standards over time with mixed levels of
success. Let’s look at some of the ways that assertion and aggression
in communication play out differently for men and women.
On the whole, men get way bigger parameters for
playing out assertion and aggression. They are expected to be
aggressive and use their power to get what they want. As boys and even
as men they bond through verbal bantering and sarcastic remarks. They
can beat each other up verbally one minute, and then go out for a beer
to bond the next. As boys they played side by side and as men they
talk side by side and shoulder to shoulder.
The first time I noticed this I was in a hallway
talking to a fellow therapist. How rude I thought, I am trying to go
over a case with him and he is ogling women. He wasn’t of course;
he was avoiding talking with me straight on. Most women see this as
not paying attention or disengaging. When woman talk to each other
and men, they talk face to face, posture is front to front. This is
uncomfortable for men, and they see it as an aggressive act. They typically
need to physically realign themselves to be more comfortable.
Women on the other hand are constrained by bans
on behavior that play out differently depending on region. Many corporations
have unspoken levels of acceptance on assertive and aggressive behavior
in women. In order to be successful, women must learn the culture of
the organization to understand what will be accepted. We don’t
really think this out; since our behaviors tend to be invisible and
unconscious of design.
Men and women continue to operate the way they played. Men tend to be
situation-friendly, rebounding from situation to situation as need demands.
They are good team players, support unquestioningly, attack and withdraw
without getting personal even through the occasional war of words between
colleagues. They rarely meet during the meetings, preferring to lobby
for decisions, cornering each member strategically, much like a football
play. The meeting is a formality.
Women on the other hand prefer building relationship
and are trust oriented. Meetings are seen as all inclusive, self-directed,
and collaborating to share ideas, completely missing the point of pre
and post meeting poles that men find valuable. Women see this as political
maneuvering. Men see not making all of the information available before
the meeting a form of blindsiding. They meet to recap and overview, therefore
agenda’s seem unnecessary.
During meetings the differences are clearer:
Men
focus on maneuvering |
Women
focus on sharing |
- Speaks at length
- Shows belief in
ideas by dominating meeting
- Talks in declamatory
sentences, interrupts or talks over the top of conversations
- Resists influence,
especially in public
- Goes and poles
everyone prior to meetings to set the stage for their issues
- Works a project:
Aggressively, through directives and if all fails punts (sees
this as the ability to risk)
- With successes
they point inward
- With failures
they point outward
|
- Speak briefly,
and waits turn
- Shares
by taking only her allotted time (men see this as evidence
that she doesn’t
care)
- Sticks to timeframes
- Ideas
as questions: I was wondering…what do you think?
- See
discussions outside of the meeting as political
- Works
a project: They will want to be honest about what they know,
don’t
typically bluff and brazenly shares that they are guessing.
- With success they
point outward
- With failures
they point inward
|
Some time ago, during a meeting with a group of
Human Resource professionals, I asked what they felt the number one
issue they had within their companies. What gave them the greatest
challenge? I fully expected some performance issues. No they declared,
not in the “at will state” capitol
of the country. They agreed that the biggest challenge is still as old
as history itself…communication.
Honestly I was surprised, because I know that high
productivity depends on solid communication, and it is hard to believe
you can have one without the other. Regardless, anything that can be done to ensure that
teams are functioning at peak performance is usually important. If
then, leadership is to be successful; we must be knowledgeable about
and accommodate the differences between male and female team members
to have greater team successes and company prosperity.
Seeing value in each of the cultures within a team
is essential to good performance, whether the culture is race specific,
or gender specific in origin. All individuals offer a unique blend of personality
traits to a groups function. I concede that some men and some women
have learned to use some gender opposite traits. But generally
speaking, males bring a sense of aggressive, directive postures and political
maneuvering to the table. While on the other hand, women provide cohesiveness;
build relationships, trust, collaboration and involvement within these
same teams.
Like a giant jigsaw puzzle, both communication
skill sets are needed to create a rich tapestry that holds all of the
puzzle pieces together. Without which, we might lose coherence and
the future opportunity to act credibly again. Integrating these
skills into a collaborative effort elevates the end result to its highest
level of conscious act. By marrying the yin and yang of the teams efforts:
resistance vs. yielding, dominance vs. sharing, questioning vs. directive
action we weave together a conclusion that is sure to produce results
that people can live and grow with over time.
Pat Heim, Ph.D., Invisible Rules
Deborah Tannen, Ph.D. You
Just Don’t Understand, That’s Not What I Meant
Shirley
Ryan was led to create the book Searching for
the Waters of Antiquity a meditation tool, and a unique
integration of her extensive career experience and her skills
of painting and meditation. She is also the founder and president
of Working Together, a business specializing in managing life’s
changes in Mind, Body & Spirit through the coaching process. She
has worked as a professional life coach since 1994.
