The Sunday Mail
Women & Leadership Maggie Mzumara
There is a belief that women in high-status positions should act as catalysts for the inclusion of other women in upper-level rungs through hiring and promotion processes, elections or nominations, but reality on the ground does not support this notion.
Instead, some women have acted as inhibitors to the inclusion of fellow women to leadership, influence and power.
To be fair, there are some women who, when they get to the top, support and pull up other women.
However, most of those that are pulled up do not send the elevator back down to fetch their fellows.
These are women who are either bent on ensuring they remain the only ones at the top (stereotypical Queen Bees) or just do not care what happens to fellow women in particular and the gender agenda at large.
Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright must have had these women in mind when she said: “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women!”
The basic belief being that since all women experience sexism, they should be more attuned to the gendered barriers that other women face, and this heightened awareness should lead them to foster alliances and actively support one another.
Where women do not help each other, this is often viewed an even worse form of betrayal than acts of exclusion committed by men.
Socialised to compete
Coming from and existing in a context of scarcity — not enough opportunities to rise to the top — and also traditionally socialised to compete, most women have operated out of fear of being left out, passed over, not being good enough, overtaken, outshone or toppled.
This has fanned the tendency to exclude other women through not actively working to promote others, deliberately keeping them out, criticising and backstabbing.
Such behaviour may see women that employ them winning the battle for the top but not the war for plenty.
For the long term, there is need to realise that there is more real and lasting strength and influence in the power of the pack.
Gender solidarity has some real dividends, enough to go round, it must be noted and acknowledged. The truth is that raising each other up and channelling the power of collaboration is truly how women at large may change the equation in the face of uneven ground and the old boys’ networks.
Critical mass is essential.
Evidence-based
According to the Gender Action Portal, a resource created by Harvard Kennedy School (Women and Public Policy Programme), a number of studies have shown that high-ranking women might prefer to be unique in their group and may choose not to have other women join their group.
Concerns around competence and performance affect the willingness of high-ranking women to advocate for other women.
Women in high-prestige groups are concerned that, among other things, a highly qualified female candidate will be viewed as more competent and valuable than they are, thus diminishing their value in the group.
A study which examined whether the gender composition and status of a work group affects women’s willingness to recruit other women into their group found that when a woman is the only female in a high-prestige work group, she is unlikely to recruit another woman to her team for fear of being either outperformed or undervalued.
The higher the women,
the more exclusionary
In the particular research quoted by the Gender Action Portal, women on all-male teams in high-prestige work groups on average chose female candidates 30 percent of the time.
However, women in lower ranks were more willing to promote other women.
Females in low-prestige work groups chose female candidates 76 percent of the time, on average.
According to these findings, the higher the women were in rank, the less they were willing to bring others along.
When faced with a female candidate who had impressive qualifications, women in high-prestige work groups expressed concern that other members of the work group would view the candidate more favourably than themselves.
While females in high-prestige groups were less likely to support the admission of a highly qualified female candidate, they were instead more likely to do so for a highly qualified male, the research found.
The gender make-up and level of prestige of a work group impact women’s willingness to support the admission of other females into their group, it was noted.
Key points
According to Dr Shawn Andrews, an organisational consultant, there is an invisible natural law in the female “culture” that shapes how women interact with other women at work and in their personal lives.
It is called the “power dead-even rule”, a term coined by Pat Heim and colleagues in their book “Hardball for Women: Winning at the Game of Business”.
This power dead-even rule governs relationships, power and self-esteem.
For a healthy relationship to be possible between women, the self-esteem and power of one must be, in the eyes of each woman, similar in weight to the self-esteem and power of the other.
In other words, these key elements must be kept “dead-even”.
When the power balance gets disrupted (such as a woman rising in status above other women), women may talk behind her back, ostracise her from the group or belittle her.
These behaviours are to preserve the dead-even power relationship that women have grown up with their entire lives.
Of course, this is a subconscious process.
Most women are not aware of this invisible rule and what drives their behaviour, but it is a big reason why women sometimes do not support other women.
In her research and book “The Power of Perception”, Dr Andrews shows that women at higher leadership levels tend to display more male-specific EQ competencies such as assertiveness and confidence, and leverage less on female-specific EQ competencies such as interpersonal relationships and empathy.
So, if a female leader puts less of a premium on the value of relationships, she may not spend the time necessary to cultivate relationships with junior women.
This is also called the Queen Bee Syndrome, when women behave in ways more typical of men to display toughness and fit in.
The idea of a Queen Bee syndrome dates to research first done in the 1970s.
The ultimate Queen Bee is the successful woman, who instead of using her power to help other women advance, undermines her women colleagues.
In such a scenario, part of the success for women at the very top is convincing men that they are not like other women.
Because of scarcity of opportunities, stiff competition for limited “spots” available at the top, this renders women less inclined to bring other women along.
It is also very common for many women to project their unwanted parts onto other women, especially their fear, envy, jealousy, suspicion, resentment, rage, anxiety, or lack of self-esteem and confidence.
This renders them unable to support fellow women, let alone collaborate with them.
Another reason is, because of the often arduous journey to the top with the myriad obstacles that might present in career and corporate environments, including the achievement of hard-fought success, some women’s attitude towards other women is “I figured it out, you should too”.
Further, executive women are often overly encumbered with daily duties and responsibilities and, though some may be willing, they may not have the time to mentor, coach and support other women as needed.
However, some argue that because patriarchal workplaces have socialised employees into believing, and consequently acting, like women are less valuable based on power, privilege and status, therefore, workplace cultures are more masculine, and this makes it difficult for women to truly support each other.
Maggie Mzumara is a leadership, communication and media strategist as well as corporate trainer. She advocates women leadership and is founder of Success in Stilettos (SiS) Seminar Series. Contact her on [email protected] or follow on Twitter @magsmzumara.
