Tag Archives: gender

The Perils of Powerless Speech Part 2: There’s an App for That!

just not sorryBy Jill D. Schmid, Ph.D.

Good news! Now, you don’t need to re-read your emails looking for the subtle ways you might be undermining your authority – as the saying goes, “There’s an app for that!” Called “Just Not Sorry,” the app highlights the language choices that I wrote about in an earlier blog (e.g., hedges like “I think,” intensifiers like “really,” and other qualifiers like, “just” or “actually”).

Recently, author Christina Cauterucci interviewed Tami Reiss the CEO of Cyrus Innovation, a software development consulting firm that specializes in women-led companies and tech teams, and part of the team that developed the “Just Not Sorry.” She and others referenced in the article reinforce that these language choices are not only unnecessary filler, but can also undermine the sender’s authority. As I wrote about, these language choices are so ingrained in us (particularly women), that without something or someone pointing them out, we are left unaware of the unintended consequences – hence, the app.
Continue reading

Don’t Tell Me To Relax: How Anger and Gender Influence Persuasion

Female boss mad for employee
By Jill D. Schmid, Ph.D.

If you’re a woman, there’s probably been at least one time in your life when someone (my money says it was a man) has told you that you “need to relax.” I’ve been told this a few times and, each time, the person pretty quickly realized it wasn’t the smartest move. Recalling these events, two thoughts come to mind: 1) I can honestly report that I wasn’t out of control, yelling, or being irrational. Instead, I was simply strongly asserting an argument about an issue – usually something political. And, 2) I’ve never witnessed or participated in a “heated” discussion and heard someone tell a man who is aggressively arguing his point that he should “relax.”

I was reminded of all of this as I read “One Angry Woman: Anger Expression Increases Influence for Men, but Decreases Influence for Women, During Group Deliberation.” The research, conducted at Arizona State University and the University of Illinois at Chicago, is a fascinating look into how a man’s versus a woman’s “anger” is perceived and then utilized by others when making decisions. While years of research (and real life experiences) show that women are often subjected to harsh criticism for being “too emotional” and are often labeled as “Bitches” (and worse) when behaving in similar ways to men (i.e., being aggressive or dominant in work situations), this particular study goes one step further and explores how aggressively advancing one’s position is undermined by simply being a woman. Continue reading

“Tokenism” does not equal “Diversity”

Lawyer defending client with jury in court

By Jill D. Schmid, Ph.D.

A tweet from Bloomberg Law caught my eye: “#Gender gap persists Among Lead Trial Counsel.” The tweet was a reference to a recently released report titled, “First Chairs at Trial: More Women Need Seats at the Table.” The report was prepared by the ABA’s Commission on Women in the Profession and the American Bar Foundation (authors Stephanie Scharf and Roberta Liebenberg). The report is an excellent analysis of the lack of women in lead trial roles and what can be done about it. I urge anyone involved in the legal profession –law schools, corporations, firms – to read the report and look for ways to encourage diversity within trial teams.

While gender (as well as racial) diversity is optimal for a number of reasons, I hesitate to make this kind of statement without a quick follow-up: too often people think that means that the trial team simply needs to “add a woman.” That is absolutely not the answer – adding a “token” woman to the team to “appeal to women on the jury,” does not work. I would say the same thing if someone asked, “Do we need a man?” or “Do we need a minority?” or “Do we need a handicapped person?” I add that last one since we had a client ask us once if they should find a disabled expert since the plaintiff had a disabled expert. For all of these, the answer is “no.” (To be fair, I’d tell someone in a deposition to be quite careful using an unequivocal no….there can be exceptions. So go ahead and ask the question, but the answer is likely: “Still no.”) Continue reading