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!

Rapport or Report - Men and Women's Communication

Best-selling author and communication scholar Deborah Tannen popularised the term “genderlect” when she used it to describe the two sex-based communication styles* She emphasized that gender communication should be treated like cross-cultural communication and therefore not as inferior or superior, but different. 

She went on to describe the broad, generalised differences. Remember, though, sex is male and female, but gender—femininity and masculinity—is a continuum.

Rapport/Report

Men and women use communication differently. Women use communication as a way to build rapport, while men use it as a way to report information, grab attention, and show power. 

This means that when women form and interpret messages, they are doing so through a lens of supportiveness. Men are more likely to do the same thing through a lens of dominance. This is especially so in the case of interrupting: Women interrupt to show support, to indicate what Tannen calls a “co-operative overlap.” Men view interrupting as a play for power

Women also use questions to build understanding, to reassure the person they are talking with, and to strengthen bonds. Women want to include others and be part of a community; this is how the use of “tag statements” is explained. 

When stating an opinion or giving an order, women will often tag their sentence with, “Would you mind…” or, “I’m not sure if we’ve done this before, but…” or, “Don’t you think?” 

These short statements are meant to placate, include, even comfort. But to men, these are like qualifiers that make the woman using them seem unsure  or uncertain.  Men avoid questions because it implies weakness or exposes ignorance (consider how this relates to the please-stop-and-ask-for-direction cliché).

Read the whole article on the GenderGurus website 

---

*    *You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tannen

---

Getting Together and Talking about it

Our GenderGurus come to this project with a variety of experiences and personal strengths.  Some have struggled to maintain clear communication in the rarefied air of medical offices and power stations; while others have sometimes lost the plot when trying to communicate with troops in the army.

So while there is ample evidence  to suggest there are genuine differences between the ways in which we make ourselves understood; we also bring to this project our personal experiences of getting it so wrong.

We can argue all night about whether our differences are caused by biology or society – but what impacts on our ability to understand each other is the practical outcome of either biology or society.

If I said that men and women mean different things when they nod while listening, how many of you would immediately scoff? 

“What rubbish, we understand each perfectly – we nod to agree!”  Well, you might do so – but I do not.  Mind you, if anyone had asked me about ten years ago I would have agreed too; but experience has shown me that I can have an entirely different reason for listening to a speaker and nodding.

Let me explain.

As a Warrant Officer in the army I often mentored junior officers.  One day a very young and nervous Second Lieutenant was due to give an important presentation on his planned project to Senior Officers.  He sat in my office, a total wreck and of course I supported and encouraged him – and told him that I would be there urging him on.

And so we proceeded; during his presentation the young officer kept glancing at me, and I was encouraging him to keep going,  “Go on” I mentally urged him, nodding my head in support; “You’re doing fine, keep it up”  I thought; nodding my head encouragingly.

Finally he finished his presentation and sat down.  The Commander then asked for my input – and unfortunately while I supported his presentation, I did not support his ideas or his plan.  I subsequently stood up and spoke out against it.  He was devastated and later accused me of deliberately making him look a fool.

“Why” he exclaimed in anger “did you sit there nodding and agreeing with me, if you were going to shoot me down in flames.”

It was made clear to me that my nodding to encourage him to continue had been taken to mean that I was in agreement with him.  One common, mutual piece of body language had been completely misunderstood by both of us.

I assumed that he would realise that my nodding meant I was encouraging him to continue; he assumed that by nodding I was agreeing with him.

Now the reason for the misunderstanding could be academic, cultural, social or whatever – but the outcome was specific, it was total misunderstanding which led to a severe breakdown in trust and credibility.

We had to talk this problem through before we could both come to an understanding of what went wrong.

Too often our own preconceived attitude can impact on the way we communicate; and we both, men and women, can buy into the stereotyping – ‘Oh men never listen’ -  or ‘why do women keep going round in circles?’

We do nothing to solve the problems when we help to perpetuate the assumptions; and we do this by complaining to those we know will agree with us.

Because men will complain about the impossibility ever of understanding women – to other men!

While women will share their amazement at the way that men completely miss the point – with other women.

In my example, the young officer could have gone back to the mess and found a willing male audience to agree and condemn me.  While I could have shared my confusion with my fellow female soldiers who, I know, would have understood it perfectly.

What actually sorted the problem out for us was our willingness to talk the situation through and to explain exactly what we had meant..  When that was clear to both of us, I knew that nodding would be taken as agreement; while he understood that he needed to clarify if I was really agreeing or merely encouraging.

In the GenderGurus project, what we are trying to do is exactly that.  We bring our own experiences to demonstrate that we cannot make assumptions about what we each mean.  That just because one gender means one thing, it does not follow that it is understood that way by the other!

We must get together and talk about whether Gender Communication is all that different, and we must do it together.  Only then can we get that light bulb moment that says “Oh NOW I get it!”

Do Men and Women really communicate differently?

In 1992 John Grey published his best seller ‘Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus’ which seemed to indicate that not only did men and women communicate very differently, but they were actually interplanetary aliens.

It seemed to make sense of the age old complaints that ‘women never get to the point’ and ‘men never listen!’ 

But even as the multitude of articles, books and workshops swept the globe, dissenting voices arose.

‘What nonsense!! In actual fact there is no difference in the way we communicate!’ was heard rumbling in the undergrowth, and in 2007 the defiant question ‘What Language Barrier’  was flung at an unsuspecting public by Deborah Cameron in an article in the UK newspaper, the Guardian.

Deborah was scathing about the Mars and Venus factor and deprecating about even the possibility that we have a gender difference in our communication styles. Of course she had a book to publicise [The Myth of Mars and Venus*] – but she is probably the most quoted of the ‘anti-gender-difference’ authors. 

Deborah is imminently qualified to speak on languages as she holds the Rupert Murdoch Professorship in Language and Communication at Worcester College, University of Oxford; but her expertise is in linguistics rather than behavioural sciences.

And by dismissing the analogy of Mars and Venus as a myth, she overlooks much of what myths mean to us.  In her book Women Who Run With The Wolves*, author Clarissa Estes claims that all ancient stories or myths began with someone’s experience and were an attempt to relate what occurred to them.  Our myths are our simple human attempt to put us into perspective and to make sense of the confusion around us.

And denying, as she does, that there are any difference in our communication she dismisses the very personal experiences that women and men have brought as evidence that there is indeed a difference, not only in our communication but also in our thinking process.

Communication is the way in which we convey our ideas and our thoughts; these are peculiar to us and are directed not only by our genes, but by our culture and our socialising. As a linguist Deborah Cameron would be fully aware that words have double meanings, there is the dictionary one which we can look up and holds generally true, [denotative] and there is the personal experiential meaning which is specific to us.[conative].

The way we interpret words is enormously affected by a number of personal and specific experiences and factors.  Those factors for boys and girls can be very different owing to cultural and social differences. 

In fact the differences can be so profound as to lead to serious questions about the way in which the sexes are treated in such important areas as law for instance.

In 2005 Katherine Baker  issued her paper Gender and Emotion in Criminal Law,  in which she argues that the law’s ignorance of gender differences is detrimental to women’s chances of receiving justice.

‘The doctrines that tend to excuse typically masculine emotional outbursts, the heat of passion excuse and self-defense, fail to provide a responsive framework for understanding women’s emotional experiences’

All our communication is an attempt to convey our thoughts, emotions and our experiences; and if those are different then our communication must by its nature reflect those differences.

Katherine also highlights a host of reasons why we experience such differing views of the world and our place in it. If our communication aims to reflect our emotional state, perhaps it might be affected by the way in which men and women process emotion

. 

‘For example’ she says ‘the larger proportion of the cerebral cortex devoted to emotional modulation observed in female brains may relate to differences in the ways men and women process emotions.’ ( See Ruben C. Gur et al., Sex Differences in Temporolimbic and Frontal Brain Volumes of Healthy Adults, 12 Cerebral Cortex 998, 998, 1001 (2002).

The very nature of the biological difference between men and women, mean that we may relate to things like stress in very different ways.

‘Numerous studies have shown that men and women respond differently to hormones during times of stress.’ (See infra text accompanying notes 61–63 (discussing effects of oxytocin and other hormones). See Shelley E. Taylor, The Tending Instinct: How Nurturing Is Essential for Who We Are and How We Live 20–34 (2002) (describing biological processes supporting the hypothesis that females, unlike males, “tend and befriend” in response to stress).

Although Deborah Cameron pours scorn on the Mars and Venus Myth she does admit that ‘the relationship between the sexes is not only about difference but also about power. The long standing expectation that women will serve and care for others is not unrelated to their position as the ‘second sex.’

She recognises that women have been culturally expected to behave differently.  Many organisations and companies still maintain the hierarchal masculine historical structure which many women find so difficult to break into.

As Katherine again highlights that there is evidence that we even think about ourselves differently:

“Beyond these studies, various researchers have suggested that, whereas men tend to think in terms of autonomy and separation, women are more likely to think in terms of connection”  and her footnote goes on to say ‘As Carrie Menkel-Meadow summarizes, “[t]he common theme that unites [the] body of work by psychologists such as Chodorow, Dinnerstein, Miller, Shaef and . . . Gilligan, is that women experience themselves through connections and relationships to others while men see themselves as separately identified individuals.” Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Portia in a Different Voice: Speculations on a Women’s Lawyering Process, 1 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 39, 43 (1985).

Of course the one difference between us that is never in doubt is the fact that women experience pregnancy and child-birth; and with that goes ‘women’s traditional assumption of disproportionate caretaking responsibilities,’

As you can see; there is very much scientific evidence to show that there are a host of difference between men and the women; and those differences can arise from a number of reasons.

The GenderGurus agree with Katherine Baker when she says

 ‘At this stage of our knowledge about the differences between men and women, it is probably irresponsible to attribute generalized differences to any one cause. However, it is equally irresponsible to assume no difference just because the differences are not automatic or we are not sure where they come from or because we just never bother to notice them.’

The problem is not whether there are differences; the problem is how do we cope with the fact that we share lives without the real understanding that we approach even the most personal of experiences from different angles. 

Misunderstanding of the way in which we each structure our communication can lead to stress and frustration in both our professional and our personal lives.

Many companies already understand the importance of good communication skills within the workplace and have ensured that their staff are trained in the concepts of public speaking and presentation skills.  They are all too well aware of the cost to the business of getting it wrong.

But what about the unspoken problem: the problem of misunderstanding the way in which men and women construct their communication and the styles which are associated with both? This too can have a profound effect on the way that business is conducted, and not only does it affect the efficiency of the company, it is also one of the main causes of stress – the main reason for absenteeism in Australia today.

The GenderGurus not only know how misunderstanding differences can wreck relationships, but also how it can impact on the effectiveness of an organisation due to its impact on morale as well as on profitability; and we want to share our experiences and our hard won knowledge on the subject of Mars and Venus – but we want to bring them back to earth, because that’s where we both really live.

And our message to you is that we cannot change our gender, but we certainly can learn to change our communication style.

Bibliography

Cameron, Deborah. ‘The Myth of Mars and Venus’ 2007 published, Oxford University Press
Estes, Clarissa Pinkola. ‘Women Who Run with the Wolves’, 1996, Random House Australia.