Building Relationships at Work

Friendships at work have historically been frowned upon; in the past they’ve been viewed as a drain on time and productivity. But modern companies are slowly moving away from this norm, and instead embrace the idea that friendships at work are critical to the bottom line. Literature supports this. LaFasto and Larson, authors of the book When Teams Work Best, write that:

 “There is some recent evidence that old-fashioned notions about keeping friendship out of the workplace are ill-informed and extremely misguided. In fact, friendships tend to move working relationships in the direction of higher quality and more productivity in work outcomes”.

They go on to say that, “…warmth, affection, liking, and friendship are properties that are much more likely to be found in good [organizations] than in poor ones”[1].

How and Why do Men and Women Build Work Relationships

Acknowledging that work friendships are important paves the way for a discussion on this question: How and why do men and women build work relationships?

One large study that included subjects from New Zealand, the United States, Australia, and the UK found that there were specific differences in both the form and outcome of work friendships for men and women[2].

How and Why Men Build Work Friendships

Men’s work friendships tend to be defined by the sharing of work tasks and activities. This accounts for the biggest differences between men and women on this topic. Men’s friendships at work are often described as instrumental, organized around shared interests and activities. They are action-oriented, not person-oriented. Men make friends when they’re working closely with others. When workload can be shared, this further cements friendships.

When a man is in a job with little opportunity to share activities with colleagues, he is significantly less likely to have work friends, according to this study. He is also less likely to make friends from different departments, owing to a strong us-and-them mentality in male workers. Just like male communication being more task oriented, a male friendship at work centers around day-to-day responsibilities.

An interesting find in this study is that job satisfaction is significantly correlated with friendship for men: When a man indicates that he is satisfied with his job, he is also likely to indicate that he has work friends. Note that this does not mean that one causes the other; there are other situational variables to account for causality.

How and Why Women Build Work Friendships

Women’s work friendships are built on a communal experience and usually involve self-disclosure and supportiveness. They are more complex than men’s friendships, involving layers of understanding and empathy. Sharing a workload or working closely with others is not significantly correlated with work friendships for women.

The study found that women are significantly more likely to make friends at work during stressful situations: this is congruent with the “tend and befriend” response to stress exhibited by females. Women seek out the comfort and support of others in stressful situations, leaning on them for social and emotional support. This explains the interesting finding that when women have friends at work, they are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their jobs.

Another finding indicated that women are so strongly affected by their work friends that they make career decisions (leaving or taking a job) based on the social opportunities offered on the job.

Overall Relevance

This study reiterated that, overall, friendships at work were related to job satisfaction and that they are an important aspect of any person’s work experience. This is proving to be a cross-cultural truth. In the United States, a Gallup study found that when subjects said they had a good friend at work, they also said they were more committed to their work. In other countries, chatting (non-task-oriented communication) at work has been shown to increase productivity.

One important point is that the strongest friendships were built between coworkers who had an unfair boss. When one employee is treated unfairly, all employees tend to band together. The relationship between poor-quality leadership and employee bonds also translates to how employees feel about their organization as a whole.

Carmel for

The GenderGurus

---

[1] “When Teams Work Best” by Frank LaFasto and Carl Larsen

[2] “Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Workplace Friendships and Organisational Outcomes” by Rachel Morrison 

Gender Differences in Groups

We have previously spoken of the complexity of the communication process, and when used with groups the  process is further complicated by what is often perceived as the two “competing” priorities in a group: tasks and relationships[1].

Based on Tannen’s ‘genderlect’ styles (see previous article ‘How Men and Women Communicate and Why’  task priorities can be considered a male concentration, while relationship priorities are female.

Task priorities are the mechanics. They address the questions, “What is our goal and when do we have to meet it?” Each element of the project, from who does what to what tools to use to what timeline to follow are situated here. Men in groups often find themselves entirely focused there. Women, on the other hand, view relationship priorities as very important. Those are group dynamics, how people are relating to one another, what the energy of the group is, and whether each person feels like they are a part of something.

Oftentimes the alternate focuses can come into competition. A task-oriented man may view the non-work-related conversation that his female team member is having as a waste of time. He may get frustrated and think he has to do the whole project by himself, leading to withholding information and refusing to co-operate. That same relationship-oriented woman may be surprised and troubled by his impersonal nature. She might consider his refusing to work with her as a reflection on her skills. 

What these two don’t realise is that neither priority is more important than the other; in fact, effective groups must have both.

Read full article 

---

 [1] When Teams Work Best by Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson

The Way We Were

One of the fiercest accusations that we face is that Gender Communication is a myth; that there is no difference in the way that we communicate, and we understand each other very well.

I think we have addressed the issue of myth before  – but let’s consider the situations that both genders have faced in the past which may have had an impact on the way in which we designed our communication.

Our communication process has developed over the years, and our ability to share complex ideas and abstract constructs has led to development of societies and civilizations.  We are a product of the way in which we communicate.

Political thought; social responsibilities; concepts of rights and privileges and our own realisation of our place in the world have all been communicated to us at one time or another. 

The relative position of the sexes throughout history is a matter of fact not of conjecture.  We may argue about the reason, but the fact is that there were vitally different roles assigned to men and to women throughout the records. If we lived within the society that structured those roles and privileges differently, then we would usually be complacent and in agreement with the way things were.

Men, because of a perceived superiority, would not wish for change; while women, because of perceptions of submissiveness would not have imagined the possibility of change. It would take some world changing events to shake those rigid perceptions – and in actual fact it took two -  World wars that is.

It was the need of a more industrial society for people to operate the machinery of war, providing the ammunition and weapons for the fighting men that first allowed women into the workplace 'en masse'.

After the First World War, when women returned to the domestic front, it appeared that little had actually changed.  But we can find evidence to the contrary in the fashions of the day.  Women had been confined to long, inconvenient skirts for centuries; and now for the first time short skirts were the demand.  Traditionalists shook their heads over it and proclaimed ‘Nothing good would come of it!”

The Second World War was even more dramatic in its reassignment of roles.  Once again men flocked to the flag and once again the factory doors opened wide to women. However this time, once peace was declared there was not the same willingness from the women to return to their domestic duties with its dependency on men.

This time it needed a concerted effort to convince women that the traditionalist roles were in effect the norm and the war time roles were merely an aberration; and many women did not buy it.

And so we were overwhelmed by Magazines extolling the domestic virtues; fashion houses produced the fripperies and flounces so associated with dolls not dames; the newfangled television sets were awash with serials populated with traditional families – hard working dad, domesticated mum and docile children.  We are probably familiar with the reconstructed version in ‘Happy Days’

But it never quite worked – the cat was out of the bag so to speak; women had tasted the freedom of choice, the freedom that earning your own income had brought.  They had single handedly ran households and businesses while their men were overseas and saw no reason to return to the status of what one woman (my mother) called ‘being a kept woman!’

Throughout all this time the styles of communication adopted by each reflected the conditions of society. Men – away at work and faced with the expectation of supporting his family, constructed a style of communication that was functional within that environment.  Women – home based and faced with the expectation of creating a stable and harmonious home, constructed a style of communication that was functional within that environment.

Unfortunately, those styles did not always cross over the doorstep harmoniously!

In today’s world we find a far different reality. Men and women both work within the workplace; both bear the responsibility of supporting the family and many women are adopting the workplace style of communication without realising it.  To suggest to these women that there is indeed a feminine style of communication can generate hostility.

And with the emphasis on more inclusive leadership within the workplace, there is a need for a more inclusive style of communication, far different from the previous one that supported the command and control regimes.  But to tell these male CEO’s that they need to lose their masculine communication and adopt the feminine one to create harmony within the workplace, can face real opposition.

The main point to take from this is that what we call ‘gender specific communication’ is really only the creation of two differing styles of communication which is accessible to both, when and where appropriate.

We are no longer The Way We Were – and we need to learn how to adopt and adapt our communication style to support our expectations.  But first we need to know what they are and what they achieve, and to do that we might need to take the word ‘Gender’ out of the equation and just concentrate on the Style.

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

---