A paradox at work

So why the discrepancy? It has a lot to do with the fact that the strategy and culture of most organisations is still set by men and often takes little account of the patterns of women’s lives. Long hours, aggression and competitiveness are dominant factors in many workplaces. Presenteeism is more the norm than parental leave. Could it be that the soft skills women have, although valued by employees and writers on management theory, make it easy for men to remain dominant?

Women’s work styles are not, of course, confined to women. There are many male managers who display these characteristics, but even the language used to describe such behaviour is fraught with difficulties. How many males find it flattering to have any aspect of their performance described as soft?

It’s hard to write about gender specific characteristics without reverting to dangerous generalisations, outdated stereotypes or outrageous sexism, but the following are generally recognised as typical female behaviours at work:

• Less interest in status and hierarchy than job content
• Valuing and practising co-operation rather than confrontation
• Happy to praise others rather than seek credit for self
• Concern about achieving a satisfying work/life balance
• See achieving consensus as important
• Interested in developing relationships with work colleagues

Perhaps these characteristics also contribute to women being underrepresented in the top jobs. Even if everyone agrees that persuasiveness, team consciousness, and the ability to communicate and negotiate effectively are desirable, it would be naive to believe that they will always be recognised and rewarded. It’s not unknown for the more ruthless of either sex to take advantage of submissive behaviour to establish their dominance. If women really are less concerned about salaries, perhaps they are less likely to push for pay rises; if they’re less interested in status, are they less likely to seek out promotions and if they don’t push does it mean they get overlooked?