How The Words We Use Are Holding Women Back

"The New Roadblock for Women: Performance Reviews"

Korn Ferry Institute (Oct. 22, 2019), https://www.kornferry.com/institute/vague-performance-reviews-women-leaders

“How We Describe Male and Female Job Applicants Differently”

Mikki Hebi, Christine L. Nittrouer, Abigail R. Corrington, and Juan M. Madera, Harvard Business Review (Sept. 27, 2018), https://hbr.org/2018/09/how-we-describe-male-and-female-job-applicants-differently

“The Different Words We Use to Describe Male and Female Leaders”

David G. Smith, Judith E. Rosenstein, and Margaret C. Nikolov, Harvard Business Review (May 25, 2018), https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-different-words-we-use-to-describe-male-and-female-leaders

***

This trio of pieces all deal with how language affects women in the workplace.

The first focuses on performance feedback — specifically, the disproportionate extent to which women get imprecise feedback in performance reviews and the effect it is having on their ability to advance to higher levels of leadership.

The second looks at a broader array of how language is used to recommend, select, and endorse employees. The authors examine data on the length of recommendation letters and the use of standout adjectives (like “superb,” “outstanding,” or “exceptional”), “doubt raisers” (negativity, faint praise, and hedging), and communal language (like “sensitive,” “caring",” “kind,” or “friendly”) and how they vary by gender. They conclude that “the words and metrics to evaluate women differ from those used to evaluate men — and this reinforces gender stereotypes and stalls women’s advancement.”

The third digs into the language used in a large scale military data set, with over 4,000 participants and 81,000 evaluations. The authors found no gender differences in objective measures (such as grades, fitness scores, and class standing) and no gender difference in the number of positive attributes assigned. However, they did find a significant difference in how often women were assigned negative attributes and what types of attributes they were given. Specifically, the most commonly used positive term to describe men was analytical, while for women it was compassionate; the most commonly used negative term to describe men was arrogant while for women, it was inept. So even though by objective measures men’s and women’s performance was the same, the picture painted by the subjective assessments varied in crucial ways. Check it out:

The common thread running through all three pieces is the importance of paying attention. Watch how we use words, and use them intentionally — recognizing their power over people’s lives and the organizations we lead.