It's what you get used to

When we talk about the gender communication differences we get two distinct reactions; the first is ‘My goodness that’s so-and-so to a tee!” or this, from one excited man who came running up to us afterwards crying “I saw myself – that was me!!” and then he said more soberly – “No wonder my wife says I ignore her”

The unique way that we demonstrate the communication equation shows people how it looks and many people either recognise themselves or the people they work with.

And then there are the others – the ones who look on with dismay and say “That never happens at my workplace!” or even “That is just sooo wrong; I don’t do that!”

The only problem with that is that they then extrapolate “I doesn’t happen to me” which [if true] is great, into “It doesn’t happen to anyone!” which is a little different.

This response is far more common from women than men; and the objection is not to their communication being described as masculine but as feminine.

“I always get to the point first!” said one indignant power station worker; “You’ll never find me setting the scene first!” (Setting the scene is a trait of feminine communication style)

“I don’t know what you are talking about, all this caring, nurturing stuff – it’s straight out of women’s magazines!!” said a female fire fighter.

After one or two of these responses I began to see the link – the one thing they all had in common - they worked in an area that was still predominantly the male group.  In many cases there were only one or two women in their workplace.

This creates a great challenge for any female moving into that different group but over time the culture of the company will prevail and knowingly or not you will absorb the style of leadership and communication which supports that.

In the army one of my nicknames was Eve – the first woman; so often was I posted into a unit, position or rank as the first female. Gradually I absorbed the group culture – and my communication mimicked the normal within in – the masculine report style.

Phil, in his banking days worked with a predominantly female team; over time he too absorbed the style of communication that was common to that group; the feminine rapport style, and began to mimic that.  Consequently, Phil is able to switch between the styles with ease to ensure clear communication with either group.

Researchers have overwhelming shown that when we communicate within groups – we adopt the style common to that group.  The women, who complained that they did not use the feminine communication style, were subsequently heard using it beautifully over lunch talking to the other women on the course.

Within our own gender groups, men when talking to men will use the masculine report style with all that implies; and women will use the feminine rapport styles instinctively when conversing with other women.

The difference is in the workplace. And while women are becoming more represented there, in many instances and many occupations it is still the men’s group and the dominate communication style will be masculine.

The new member of these teams will be exposed to the way the group communicates and will adopt that as being the norm – normal that is for this group.

More recently, men are beginning to move into traditional female roles, nursing, and service industries for example.  Here the group norm is a more feminine rapport style, and gradually more men, like Phil did, are adopting the communication style dominant in that group.

There is one other influence on the styles of communication which is adopted with the workplace – and that is the dominant style of leadership within the company or organisation.  Those that enter the police force; the fire department or the military will by the very nature of the job, be walking into an authoritarian leadership environment.  This leadership style adopts the masculine report driven type of communication to enforce command and control.

Service based industries are far more inclusive in their leadership styles; there is much more drive towards contribution and consensus which of course requires a feminine style to build relationships.

These leadership styles will influence the style of communication regardless of which group you belong to, and to succeed either group will have to adopt the dominant style.

Which is why female soldiers, fireman and police will automatically drop into the masculine style within their workplace – while reverting to the feminine outside; and male nurses, and counsellors will adopt the feminine within the workplace and revert when outside of it.

So, when we tell you that there are two sorts of communication which have traditional backgrounds and are associated with the historical roles for men and women; and which differ in the way that they use language and interpretation – please do not get into a state if you believe that it doesn’t apply to you!

You are most likely a very effective communicator, able to adapt to the group you work with and adopt the style in common use.  That way you are part of the group, identified with the group and accepted by the group –  there will be no difficulty for you at all.

It’s what you get used to ...

From the GenderGurus

Related Topics

How men and Women Communicate and why it is so different

Non Verbal Communication

Yes! It’s true; men and women do speak differently languages

Sociolinguists have long argued that men and women use language differently; and there are measurable differences between the speech patterns of men and the speech patterns of women.

It is when we study languages other than English that we find specific examples of gender difference in the use of language.

For instance in 1972, the noted scholar Robert Malcolm Dixon, Professor of Linguistics at James Cook University in Cairns, pointed out that there are two differing versions of the Aboriginal Dyirbal language. Each to be used depending on the relationship and the gender of those present.

One is known as the ‘everyday’ or common language and the other is the ‘avoidance’ language. And this is where it gets complicated, so concentrate!

In the presence of a parent-in-law or a child-in-law of the opposite sex then the ‘avoidance’ language will be used.  This also applies when in conversation with a cross-cousin of the opposite sex – which means your father’s sister’s child or your mother’s brother’s child – I did say it got complicated.

But the interesting thing about the language is that while the everyday version and the avoidance version use the same grammar and the same sound system – the words they use are entirely different.  Dixon tells us that there is not one word in common between them. Dixon (1972) pp 32-33

There are other examples of the way that language changes depending on which gender uses it.  In some instances while the word is the same the pronunciation is different.

In the Northeast of the United States in the Gros Ventre language, the word for bread is pronounced as ‘kjatsa’ when used by women and as ‘djatsa’ by men.  These pronunciation differences are quite distinct and if a male was to use the feminine pronunciations he would be ostracised as being effeminate.

But we need not go to such ancient languages for examples, in Japanese we can find some very specific words that are used only by men and others only by women.

For instance the word for water is ‘mizu’ as used by men and ‘ohiya’ when used by women. A delicious piece of food is described as ‘umai’ by men and ‘oisii’ by women; and the verb to eat is ‘kuu’ in a man’s world and ‘taberu’ in a woman’s.

Even when referring to one’s self there are distinct words which can be used by each sex. A woman can use the word ‘atashi’, which is never used by men, they would use the term ‘boku’ – thankfully there is also a word for ‘I’ which both can use. ‘watakushi’

So perhaps we can be thankful that we don’t have those problems in English. But of course we do. For many years there were differing words used to denote male or female activities.  Author – Authoress:  Actor – Actress; And words that described activities that once had no female participation do not have a feminine equivalent;  so it is ‘Soldier’ and there is no ‘soldieress’; it was ‘doctor’ never ‘doctoress’.

When women started to move into these careers we were left with the ugly construction of ‘female soldiers’ and ‘lady doctors’. Modern English is still in the transition from gender specific terms to more gender neutral ones.

The problem for us is not so much in the different words or pronunciation – it is in the various linguistic characterisations that the genders adopt.

Whether these are due to socialising or other reasons are the base of academic studies; that they do exist and are recognisable should be understood by all of us who engage in communication in a modern workplace.

The American sociolinguist Lakoff argues that women’s use of langue differs in features such as ‘qualifiers’ or ‘fillers’.  A woman is more likely to say ‘you know’ or ‘you see’ than a man would.

Females will end a statement with a question ‘that’s a lovely dress, isn't it?’  Males would not.

The use of rising intonation at the end of sentences will turn any statement into a question without it specifically being asked. Women use this feature, while men do not.

All shades of red are just ‘red’ to men, but women can distinguish between magenta, cerise and scarlet.

Women like to set the scene and use far more dramatic and emphatic adjectives – A man might say ‘That’s a great idea’ while a woman may be inclined to say it was ‘brilliant.’ [2]

Lakoff – and others- have argued that this difference in the use of language by women is a sign of their lack of confidence.  But psychologists who have engaged in practical work with both genders have come to the conclusion that the difference is based more on the way we interact within our gender group.

Men are more competitive and action focused; women are more relationship based and knowledge driven.  These differing interactions affect the way we use language within our own groups and can cause misunderstandings when used across genders.

So we have used different languages according to gender throughout history and across social groups.  And it seems to me that the speakers of the Dyirbal language in Northern Australia would have to have been fluent in both languages (the ‘everyday’ one and the ‘avoidance’ one) to be able to switch from one to the other as circumstances dictated.

This is, I think, an excellent guideline for us today; if we are familiar with the different way men and women can use language, and if we become equally fluent in both – we too can switch from one to the other as our circumstances dictate.

What a powerful communication tool that would be.

Sources :

1.   Dixon, R.M.W. 1972, The Dyirbal language of North Queensland (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 9).: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

2.    Lakoff, R. 1975, Language and Women’s Place. Harper & Row, New York

3.    Baker, Barrett & Roberts. 2002, Working Communication, John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd, Brisbane

The Rules of the Game – from a feminine point of view.

One of the first things we realise when we start playing any sport is that we need to learn the rules before we get to play the game properly.

Someone whose behaviour during the game proves that they don’t know rules, or refuse to abide by them, will often be excluded from the team.  The rules of the game are there to ensure that everyone plays the same way; that no-one plays in such a way as to achieve an unfair advantage – and that the game proceeds exactly as expected.

And then comes  ... the maverick!  This is the player that breaks the rules to create a better and more attractive game.

A maverick like William Webb Ellis, who was playing soccer in 1823 when, in complete defiance of the rules picked up the ball and ran down the field ... and rugby was born.

Or a maverick like Christina Willes, the Victorian lady who changed the face of cricket forever. In 1805 while bowling to her brother,  the Kent player John Willes, Christina found the long skirts of her crinoline made bowling underarm (the normal way to deliver the ball) very difficult; and so invented a way of delivering the ball overarm.

The rest, as they say is history.

So what has this got to do with Gender differences you might ask?

Well, whether we understand it or not the workplace, the business or the public corporation is a man’s playground; and they invented the rules.

Traditionally, when our roles were starkly differentiated, the power on the public front was held by males, and the power on the domestic front was held by females and the rules that each played by were specific to the game that each played.

When society changed and more and more women moved into the workplace, we found that the rules of this game differed from the rules we were used to playing by in our game.

Now, if we were used to playing cricket and moved over to play rugby, surely we would not expect to use the rules we are familiar with – if we tried to do that we would create chaos!  If we were wise, we would study the rules of this new game and put them into practice, and then we could see where maybe some of our rules might be able to enhance and improve the game that we are now both playing together.

Christina Willes had learned the rules of cricket as they were at the time, she understood them well.  Her decision to change it was brought about by the circumstances that made it difficult for her to follow the existing rules, and so she devised a way to achieve the aim (bowling the ball to the batsman) by changing the rules.

Luckily for the future of the game, her brother John Willes was a very good batsman even with the difficulty of scoring against underarm bowling.  Facing an overarm ball he noticed that the ball came onto the bat much quicker, allowing him to deliver a much more powerful stroke; which made scoring runs much easier.

He embraced the new method with gusto, seeing the opportunity for batsmen, but diehard traditionalist fought against the changes – they were so very different to the way the game had been played .So it wasn’t until 1864 that overarm bowling was made legal!

And so with the workplace today – the culture of the boardroom, the saleroom or the backroom has been established through the years; the rules of the game have been created to reflect the strengths of men – the business world has been the men’s playground and the criteria that indicate success has been traditionally defined by what men define as success.  It is inevitable; it is an outcome of the history of society.

What is often overlooked is that the way we communicate indicates the rules we are used to.  The male game is factual, and action dominated; control and command dictate a direct style of communication that reflects their rules.  The female game is nurturing and relationship dominated; inclusiveness dictates an indirect style of communication which reflects our rules.

If we are to take our bat and ball and start to play the business game, we need to learn the rules of the game as it is now played – and only then can we bring new rules to the game which can enhance the ability of the team to win.

And the men that play the game also need to take the analogy on board.  Merely dismissing a different way of playing just because it is different, does not allow you to see the opportunity these changes may give you of hitting a competitor for six.  It took the dinosaurs of English cricket nearly sixty years to admit that the change created a more attractive game and legalise it. In today’s fast paced world we do not have the luxury of being able to wait that long. 

The work place is a hotbed of relationships – and relationships is women’s speciality, so by increasing the effectiveness of the workforce we might, just might, find ourselves increasing the effectiveness of the work place.

We both played our own game brilliantly; we knew the rules and used them to our advantage.  We are both now playing a slightly different game, and we are playing it in a very difficulty playing field; but by combining our strengths surely we can create a more effective game for the future with rules that we both understand.

So here's to the game!