Are Women Bosses Vindictive?

serialjunkie thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 12 years ago
#1
Read a recent article on WSJ about The Tyranny of Queen Bee

Read: The Tyranny of the Queen Beehttp://on.wsj.com/14ajeCa

Question -
Are women bosses more vindictive?
Is professional jealousy breaking down the sisterhood of traveling career pantsuits? Are women unable to become good mentors and give a leg up to fellow female subordinates? Is the Queen Bee curse a cross women will bear?

Pasting the article here:-

The Tyranny of the Queen Bee

Women who reached positions of power were supposed to be mentors to those who followed'but something is amiss in the professional sisterhood by PEGGY DREXLER

Kelly was a bright woman in her early 30s: whip-smart, well qualified, ambitious'and confused. Even a little frightened.

She worked for a female partner in a big consulting firm. Her boss was so solicitous that Kelly hoped the woman'one of just a few top female partners'might become her mentor. But she began to feel that something was wrong. In meetings, her boss would dismiss her ideas without discussion and even cut her off in mid-sentence. Kelly started to hear about meetings to which she wasn't invited but felt she should be. She was excluded from her boss's small circle of confidants.

What confused Kelly was that she was otherwise doing well at the firm. She felt respected and supported by the other senior partners. She had just one problem, but it was a big one. One of the male partners pulled her aside and confirmed Kelly's suspicions: Her boss had been suggesting to others that Kelly might be happier in a different job, one "more in line with her skills."


I met Kelly while I was conducting research on women in the workplace. She was trying to puzzle through what she had done wrong and what to do about it. (To protect the privacy of Kelly and others in the study, I refer to them here by first names only.) I wasn't sure Kelly had done anything wrong, and I said so. As I told her, "You might have met a queen bee."

Having spent decades working in psychology, a field heavily populated by highly competitive women, I had certainly seen the queen bee before: The female boss who not only has zero interest in fostering the careers of women who aim to follow in her footsteps, but who might even actively attempt to cut them off at the pass.

The term "queen bee syndrome" was coined in the 1970s, following a study led by researchers at the University of Michigan'Graham Staines, Toby Epstein Jayaratne and Carol Tavris'who examined promotion rates and the impact of the women's movement on the workplace. In a 1974 article in Psychology Today, they presented their findings, based on more than 20,000 responses to reader surveys in that magazine and Redbook. They found that women who achieved success in male-dominated environments were at times likely to oppose the rise of other women. This occurred, they argued, largely because the patriarchal culture of work encouraged the few women who rose to the top to become obsessed with maintaining their authority.

A 2007 survey of 1,000 American workers released by the San Francisco-based Employment Law Alliance found that 45% of respondents had been bullied at the office'verbal abuse, job sabotage, misuse of authority, deliberate destruction of relationships'and that 40% of the reported bullies were women. In 2010, the Workplace Bullying Institute, a national education and advocacy group, reported that female bullies directed their hostilities toward other women 80% of the time'up 9% since 2007. Male bullies, by contrast, were generally equal-opportunity tormentors.Four decades later, the syndrome still thrives, given new life by the mass ascent of women to management positions. This generation of queen bees is no less determined to secure their hard-won places as alpha females. Far from nurturing the growth of younger female talent, they push aside possible competitors by chipping away at their self-confidence or undermining their professional standing. It is a trend thick with irony: The very women who have complained for decades about unequal treatment now perpetuate many of the same problems by turning on their own.

A 2011 survey of 1,000 working women by the American Management Association found that 95% of them believed they were undermined by another woman at some point in their careers. According to a 2008 University of Toronto study of nearly 1,800 U.S. employees, women working under female supervisors reported more symptoms of physical and psychological stress than did those working under male supervisors.

Something is clearly amiss in the professional sisterhood.

Erin, another participant in my own study, was a food writer at a glossy magazine. Her supervisor, Jane, seemed out to get her from day one'though never quite to her face. Jane liked playing hot and cold: One day she would pull Erin close to gossip about another colleague; the next she would scream at her for not following through on a task Erin hadn't known she was expected to perform.

Erin eventually found out that Jane was bad-mouthing her to mutual contacts in the food and restaurant industry. Jane would casually slip barbs into business conversations, telling others, for example, that Erin had engaged in an affair with a married man (she hadn't) or was giving more favorable reviews to restaurant owners who were her friends (she wasn't).

Jane's campaign against Erin wasn't much more than mean-spirited gossiping, but Erin felt that it caused her peers to think of her differently and certainly made her professional life more difficult. But how could she lodge an official complaint? "What would it say?" Erin asked me. "Jane is talking about me behind my back?" At various points, Erin thought the only way to fight back was to play along and start trash-talking Jane. But was that really the solution?

As the old male-dominated workplace has been transformed, many have hoped that the rise of female leaders would create a softer, gentler kind of office, based on communication, team building and personal development. But instead, some women are finding their professional lives dominated by high school "mean girls" all grown up: women with something to prove and a precarious sense of security.


What makes these queen bees so effective and aggravating is that they are able to exploit female vulnerabilities that men may not see, using tactics that their male counterparts might never even notice. Like Jane's gossiping about Erin's personal life. Or when Kelly's boss would comment on her outfit: "Who are you trying to impress today?" Or not-so-gently condescend: "Did you take your smart pill today, sweetie?" Their assaults harm careers and leave no fingerprints.

That is one reason many victims never see such attacks coming'and are powerless to prevent them. In Kelly's case, she had assumed her female boss might want to help foster her growth out of some sense of female solidarity. Erin had specifically sought out working at the magazine because she admired Jane's writing and wanted to learn from her. Why wouldn't Jane be eager to teach? It is women, after all, who are hastening the table-pounding male bullies toward obsolescence.

But both Kelly and Erin's superiors seem to have viewed the women under them not as comrades in arms but as threats to be countered. In a world where there are still relatively few women in positions of power'just 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs and 16% of boards of directors, as noted in Deborah Rhode and Barbara Kellerman's book "Women and Leadership"'it is an understandable assumption that the rise of one would mean the ouster of another. One for one, instead of one plus one.

Though it is getting easier to be a professional woman, it is by no means easy. Some women'especially in industries that remain male-dominated'assume that their perches may be pulled from beneath them at any given moment (and many times, they are indeed encouraged to feel this way). Made to second-guess themselves, they try to ensure their own dominance by keeping others, especially women, down.

The result is a distinctive strain of negative leadership traits'less overtly confrontational than their domineering male counterparts but bullying just the same. Comments on appearance or dress are part of their repertoire'something that would be seen more obviously as harassment when coming from a man'as are higher, sometimes even unreasonable, expectations for performance. Women who have risen in male-dominated fields may want to tell themselves that their struggle and success were unique. As a result they sometimes treat the performance of females who follow as never quite good enough.

It cuts both ways, though: Women aren't always the best employees to other women either. Female subordinates can show less respect and deference to female bosses than to their male bosses.

image


Queen bees are less overtly confrontational than their male counterparts, but they are bullies just the same.

A 2007 Syracuse University study published in the Journal of Operational and Organizational Psychology found that women are critical of female bosses who are not empathetic. They also tend to resent female bosses who adopt a brusque and assertive management style, even as they find it perfectly acceptable for male bosses. And so they question and push back, answering authority with attitude.

One woman I encountered in my research, Amanda, faced this problem when she began a new job as a vice president at a Manhattan ad agency. The role was her first in management and included overseeing three women who were her age or younger. She knew she was qualified for the position, but from the very first day, Amanda had a difficult time feeling that she had their respect, or even their attention. Though deferential and solicitous to her male colleagues, they openly questioned Amanda's decisions. They went above her head, made comments about her wardrobe and even refused to say good morning and good night. She felt like she was back in high school, trying to break into an elite clique.

Amanda tried various tactics: being overly authoritative, being their "friend." Eventually she stopped trying to get them to respond or encouraging them to do their jobs as directed. Instead, she fired all three.

Queen bees are creatures of circumstance, encircling potential rivals in much the same way as the immune system attacks a foreign body. Female bosses are expected to be "softer" and "gentler" simply because they are women, even though such qualities are not likely the ones that got them to where they are. In the more cutthroat precincts of American achievement, women don't reach the top by bringing in doughnuts in the morning.

Men use fear as a tool of advancement. Why shouldn't women do the same? Until top leadership positions are as routinely available to women as they are to men, freezing out the competition will remain a viable survival strategy.

'Dr. Drexler is an assistant professor of psychology in psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College and the author, most recently, of "Our Fathers, Ourselves: Daughters, Fathers and the Changing American Family."

A version of this article appeared March 2, 2013, on page C1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.

Edited by serialjunkie - 12 years ago

Created

Last reply

Replies

22

Views

2.5k

Users

11

Likes

54

Frequent Posters

CravingKhana thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 12 years ago
#2
😛

Hey SJ,
A friend of mine had this theory that he foll without fail...at immigration...he would join the line...of a male officer of the dominant race...who was not very young or close to retirement either...

his explanation...the system was in this persons favor he had nothing to prove...and there fore was easygoing at his job...and therefore...made the line move quicker and was easy on the passengers...

SO stereotyping Yes (why not with all the racial profiling they do on us why not reverse)...but as a rule of thumb he was right...i fought it for many yrs but succumbed soon when the creature comforts became more imp...???!!!!!!

so what i say here is going to be mostly a generalisation as I myself ...have countered the opposite...

I think the article is true of industries in the commercial world..and industries previously owned by the male head (and in the west the white male)...

(if your in a job where your survival / life is dependent on your partner/boss/subordinate...all other issues lay secondary)

and also true more of the generation that had to literally burn their bras to break through...so the experience probably made them tough(er) cookies...and its only human to not want to let what you got with much hard work...to another who walks in...and does not even appreciate the effort to break through...

the other side of the coin is that the person might be tough to all while males might have their own bridges to cross with female bosses the women have preconceived expectations...(of their gender making it easy with the boss..understanding) and boss unable or not to meet expectations...hence...
...


Also with the era of workplace sexual harrassment getting so much attention, Opposite genders are finding it difficult to be openly authoritative and /or to bully...

women unlike men have the power to unearth all sorts of shit about another...and use it too...and we also can be conniving and undermining...

and yes if Q B is in the making others beware...

and then again...as i stated above..these are just generalisation...and many exceptions...that i have had the pleasure of working with and for...


Edited by CravingKhana - 12 years ago
boreddamsel thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 12 years ago
#3
SJ, it goes back to the whole "women are women's enemies".

I used to have a female teacher in my undergrad, who always used to ignore the girls in the class. She used to teach only the boys, like literally turn to their side and talk. She also gave them extra marks, and used to cut our marks without reason. And its not like she was well-qualified or anything. So we concluded that she was jealous and didn't think that girls would succeed or something!

I think this could be because women at the top feel insecure, and subordinates feel jealous. There are of course exceptions. I have worked with remarkable women who really really want you to succeed and go out of their way to help you, so I guess not all women leaders are vindictive.

The same goes with your second example.

Women tend to think women who are in top positions are not as qualified as the men in the same or higher positions and hence don't take them seriously. I have faced this too. I vaguely remember female friends who would rather trust my colleague to give them the right solution than me, even though I knew the solution. And then they talk about gender bias.. when women treat other women unfairly, how can you expect men to treat you fairly!

But again, not all of them are that way! I have also had interns who are extremely sweet and do everything you ask them to and think you are cool, so yeah not all women subordinates are vindictive either!

So I don't know if you can say that this happens only with women. I guess bosses could be vindictive, irrespective of gender.
Edited by boreddamsel - 12 years ago
moomin4455 thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 12 years ago
#4
As a woman, I feel comfortable talking to women and having women friends (although I have friends of both genders) but find it better working with and working for men - just my opinion.

I've had women bosses who've been unable to separate their emotions or personal life from their jobs, which means they've vented their frustration on their staff. But that's my experience.

I've found the men I've worked for to be more neutral, fairer and easier to talk to - again my experience.

It varies I guess - men and women have their own issues with male bosses too. I wonder if most men find it easier working for a female boss, for example?
McNinja thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 12 years ago
#5

A shitty boss can be of either sex. But do I feel that professional women, especially those higher up the food chain, sometimes overdo the "tough guy" act? Sure. I guess we feel that we need to come across as more ruthless to be taken seriously. But then, men face their own sets of issues...comes with the deal.

It might be hard for women to find a balance because if they are too tough, they may be called catty. Likewise, if they are too laid-back, they may be called a softy, emotional et al. But in my opinion, these are labels that women on the whole have earned. Being jealous, catty, overzealous when things don't go our way is something people associate with us, especially over petty things. Call it cultural conditioning to be associated as such but women prove these stereotypes to be true more often than not. And it often comes down to bruised egos.

Vanity, thy name is woman?

I know, I know...I will get shoes, tomatoes thrown at me from my feminists friends for having such a regressive opinion on women but I'm only saying it how I see it. But really, I guess I'm just a pessimist. Let's just hug it out. 😆


Edited by McNinja - 12 years ago
serialjunkie thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 12 years ago
#6
thanks ladies, for adding your povs.

keep it rolling...im enjoying the views/counter views/neutality
-Aarya- thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 12 years ago
#7

In most cases women mistake aggression for assertiveness, basically being assertive means to stand up for yourself, but being aggressive means attacking without cause. It's really the prevailing attitude of feminist thought this era which has led women to believe that they must play dirty to stay even with men. So what do you really prefer, a woman or man manager?

boreddamsel thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 12 years ago
#8

Originally posted by: McNinja


A shitty boss can be of either sex. But do I feel that professional women, especially those higher up the food chain, sometimes overdo the "tough guy" act? Sure. I guess we feel that we need to come across as more ruthless to be taken seriously. But then, men face their own sets of issues...comes with the deal.

It might be hard for women to find a balance because if they are too tough, they may be called catty. Likewise, if they are too laid-back, they may be called a softy, emotional et al. But in my opinion, these are labels that women on the whole have earned. Being jealous, catty, overzealous when things don't go our way is something people associate with us, especially over petty things. Call it cultural conditioning to be associated as such but women prove these stereotypes to be true more often than not. And it often comes down to bruised egos.

Vanity, thy name is woman?

I know, I know...I will get shoes, tomatoes thrown at me from my feminists friends for having such a regressive opinion on women but I'm only saying it how I see it. But really, I guess I'm just a pessimist. Let's just hug it out. 😆



M, believe it or not, I agree with you!
Women do mix personal and professional stuff.. and get over stressed.. and do have a tendency to vent out their anger elsewhere.. and on top of it, we have our hormones to thank for!

But on the other hand, its tough like you said to be a woman in a top position. If you are soft, its a crime .. if you are tough, its a crime! If you mingle with everyone, they say you are flirty. If you are aloof, they say you have an ego! I guess men face the same issues, but unfortunately women have to work harder to get appreciated the same way men do!

I met this girl who when she was at her interview, people were joking about how everyone wants women at their workplace, just so that their company profile looks better. Imagine working in a place where people think you got in just because of your gender and not because of your merit. You work harder to be appreciated and then you end up getting less pay! 😡

Sorry if I went off-topic. 😛

But yeah.. I agree M.
Edited by boreddamsel - 12 years ago
boreddamsel thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 12 years ago
#9

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

In most cases women mistake aggression for assertiveness, basically being assertive means to stand up for yourself, but being aggressive means attacking without cause. It's really the prevailing attitude of feminist thought this era which has led women to believe that they must play dirty to stay even with men. So what do you really prefer, a woman or man manager?


You have a point there. Women need to be assertive, and that could be aggressive. But I doubt if someone could mistake one for the other, unless they just want to see it that way! I am not sure if playing dirty could get you higher up in the ladder.

I think as long as the manager is reasonable, supportive and encouraging, gender shouldn't matter. I don't think I could ever work with someone vindictive; I would leave the job or switch groups.
Forever-KA thumbnail
16th Anniversary Thumbnail Rocker Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 12 years ago
#10
No Queen B has ever had any issue with this King A.

Related Topics

Debate Mansion thumbnail

Posted by: Viswasruti · 2 months ago

🤱Surrogacy: Womb For Hire! Is It A Blessing Or A Curse For Women?👶 Infertility can be a challenging obstacle to overcome, but advances in...

Expand â–¼
Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".