Dr. Heidi Grant

Why Ability Doesn’t Always Lead to Confidence: The Trouble With Bright Girls

by Leave a Comment

Originally a guest post I wrote for WomenOnBusiness.com

Successful women know only too well that in any male-dominated profession, we often find ourselves at a distinct disadvantage.   We are routinely underestimated, underutilized, and even underpaid.  Studies show that women need to perform at extraordinarily high levels, just to appear moderately competent compared to our male coworkers.

But in my experience, smart and talented women rarely realize that one of the toughest hurdles they’ll have to overcome to be successful lies within.  We judge our own abilities not only more harshly, but fundamentally differently, than our male colleagues do.   Understanding why we do it is the first step to righting a terrible wrong.  And to do that, we need to take a step back in time.

Chances are good that if you are a successful businesswoman today, you were a pretty bright fifth grade girl.  My graduate advisor, psychologist Carol Dweck (author of Mindset) conducted a series of studies in the 1980s, looking at how bright girls and boys in the fifth grade handled new, difficult and confusing material.

She found that bright girls, when given something to learn that was particularly foreign or complex, were quick to give up – and the higher the girls’ IQ, the more likely they were to throw in the towel.  In fact, the straight-A girls showed the most helpless responses.  Bright boys, on the other hand, saw the difficult material as a challenge, and found it energizing.  They were more likely to redouble their efforts, rather than giving up.

Why does this happen?  What makes smart girls more vulnerable, and less confident, when they should be the most confident kids in the room?  At the 5th grade level, girls routinely outperform boys in every subject, including math and science.  So there were no differences between these boys and girls in ability, nor in past history of success.   The only difference was how bright boys and girls interpreted difficulty – what it meant to them when material seemed hard to learn.  Bright girls were much quicker to doubt their ability, to lose confidence, and to become less effective learners as a result.

Researchers have uncovered the reason for this difference in how difficulty is interpreted, and it is simply this:  more often than not, bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice.

How do girls and boys develop these different views?  Most likely, it has to do with the kinds of feedback we get from parents and teachers as young children.  Girls, who develop self-control earlier and are better able to follow instructions, are often praised for their “goodness.”  When we do well in school, we are told that we are “so smart,” “so clever, “ or “ such a good student.”  This kind of praise implies that traits like smartness, cleverness, and goodness are qualities you either have or you don’t.

Boys, on the other hand, are a handful.  Just trying to get boys to sit still and pay attention is a real challenge for any parent or teacher.  As a result, boys are given a lot more feedback that emphasizes effort (e.g., “If you would just pay attention you could learn this,” “If you would just try a little harder you could get it right.”)  The net result: when learning something new is truly difficult, girls take it as sign that they aren’t “good” and “smart”, and boys take it as a sign to pay attention and try harder.

We continue to carry these beliefs, often unconsciously, around with us throughout our lives.  And because bright girls are particularly likely to see their abilities as innate and unchangeable, they grow up to be women who are far too hard on themselves – women who will prematurely conclude that they don’t have what it takes to succeed in a particular arena, and give up way too soon.

Even if every external disadvantage to a woman’s rising to the top of an organization is removed – every inequality of opportunity, every chauvinistic stereotype, all the challenges we face balancing work and family – we would still have to deal with the fact that through our mistaken beliefs about our abilities, we may be our own worst enemy.

How often have you found yourself avoiding challenges and playing it safe, sticking to goals you knew would be easy for you to reach?  Are there things you decided long ago that you could never be good at?  Skills you believed you would never possess?  If the list is a long one, you were probably one of the Bright Girls  – and your belief that you are “stuck” being exactly as you are has done more to determine the course of your life than you probably ever imagined.  Which would be fine, if your abilities were innate and unchangeable.  Only they’re not.

No matter the ability – whether it’s intelligence, creativity, self-control, charm, or athleticism – studies show them to be profoundly malleable.  When it comes to mastering any skill, your experience, effort, and persistence matter a lot.    So if you were a Bright Girl, it’s time to toss out your (mistaken) belief about how ability works, embrace the fact that you can always improve, and reclaim the confidence to tackle any challenge that you lost so long ago.

When You Benefit From Being Underestimated, and When You Pay For It

by Leave a Comment

From my Fast Company Blog:

There have been times in my life when I felt that, because I’m female, I have been treated unfairly in the workplace – times when I was passed over for leadership positions, or less trusted with responsibilities that are traditionally given to men.   Then again, I’ve also felt at times that I’ve benefitted from low expectations – particularly when handling something women aren’t supposed to do well. (Like the time when diagnosing and repairing a simple computer glitch suddenly rendered me a “computer whiz” around the office.  Come on, people.)

If you are a member of a group that is stereotyped as less competent, then you are no doubt well aware that stereotypes do in fact influence how your coworkers and supervisors see you.  What you may not have realized is that their influence can work for or against you, depending on the type of evaluation you are receiving.

Psychologists who study the way human beings make judgments distinguish between using minimum standards (enough to make you suspect something is true) and confirmatory standards (enough to make you certain that something is true).

Imagine you are trying to figure out whether or not Steve is a dishonest guy.  Minimum standards of dishonesty would probably be met the first time you catch Steve in a lie – you would start to suspect that Steve can’t be trusted, but you wouldn’t be sure. After all, everybody lies from time to time.  To meet confirmatory standards, however, you’d probably have to catch Steve in a number of lies – enough to conclude that he is more than usually deceptive.

Stereotypes affect both our minimum and confirmatory standards for a given trait, but in opposite directions.  For example, part of the stereotype for women, particularly in the business world, is that they are less competent than men.  Studies show that because of this stereotype, minimum standards of competence for women are lower than they are for men. In other words, you are quicker to suspect that a woman is smart than you are to suspect that a man is.  That’s because when a woman does something “smart” it stands out more, since it is (unfortunately) more surprising.  When it comes to minimum standards of competence, women seem to benefit from being underestimated.

Unfortunately, the reverse is true when it comes to confirmatory standards, which are higher for women when it comes to competence.  So in order for someone to be certain that a woman is smart, she needs to provide more evidence of competence than a man would.  For a woman, you need to be consistently really smart to prove you aren’t actually stupid.

These differing standards have real world consequences.  In one study, female candidates for a job were more likely to be placed on a short list than males (evidence for the lower minimal standard of competence), but less likely than male candidates to actually be hired (evidence for the higher confirmatory standard of competence). In another study, White law school applicants with weak credentials were judged more positively than Black applicants with identical credentials (further evidence of the higher confirmatory standard for a stereotyped group).

So stereotyped people (women, minorities) will have an easier time than their White male counterparts when minimum standards are used to judge them, and a harder time when confirmatory standards are used.  But what determines which standards are used?

In a recent set of studies, researchers found that set of standards that get used is often determined by the formality of the evaluation.  A formal record or log  (like an end-of-the-year review) invokes the use of the confirmatory standard, while informal evaluation and personal note-taking  (like the kind of feedback your boss gives you at a weekly meeting) invokes the use of the minimum standard.

The researchers asked each participant in the studies to review information about a company trainee with a spotty performance record (i.e., he or she had lost a file on a client, missed an important deadline, and forgotten a scheduled appointment with a client, among other things).  The participants were asked to either “take informal notes” that would be for purely personal use, or to keep a “formal employment log” that would become a part of the employee’s permanent record.

They found that participants were more likely to record negative behaviors in their personal notes for White males than for women or Black males, but less likely to do so for White males in their formal notes.  In other words, judges noticed and recorded fewer negative behaviors for the groups stereotyped as incompetent (women and Blacks) when using minimal standards in the informal evaluation, but noticed and recorded more of the same behaviors when using the confirmatory standards of the formal evaluation.

At the end of both evaluations, participants were asked if the trainee should be kept on at the company or terminated.  Not surprisingly, White males were more likely to be recommended for termination when evaluated informally, and less likely to be fired when evaluated formally.

The participants in these studies weren’t overt racists or sexists – in fact, they weren’t even aware that they were evaluating employees differently because of their race or gender.  Like much of today’s workplace bias, its influence occurred at an unconscious level, perpetrated by otherwise decent and fair-minded people.  But even if its workings are intangible, the results of bias are anything but.  When different standards are unknowingly used, people end up being more likely to be hired or fired because of their gender or race, and that is unacceptable.

The good new is, unconscious bias loses much of its power once we recognize that it exists.  Once we become aware that we are apt to use different standards to evaluate people doing the same job, and once we understand when we are likely to be a little too lenient, or a little too critical, we can adjust accordingly.  Probe your own thinking for bias – ask yourself, would I come to the same conclusion about this employee’s behavior if she were a he, and if he were White?  Chances are you can make fair decisions, once you realize how and why you might make unfair ones.

3 Reasons Why It Pays to Not Let Sexist Comments Slide

by Leave a Comment

From my Fast Company blog:

Your colleague Jim calls you “honey,” makes cracks about women drivers, and suggests that you be the one to shop for the retirement gift for Bob because “women like that sort of thing.”    A lot of the sexism that women encounter in the workplace looks like this – comments that are not necessarily meant to cause insult or discomfort, uttered by otherwise decent enough male coworkers who you generally like.  But they are harmful nonetheless, because they perpetuate stereotypic views of women’s preferences and abilities.  If you found yourself in a situation like this, what would you do?

While we’d all like to believe that we would confront anyone who said something sexist (or otherwise bigoted) to us personally, the truth is that it rarely happens. For instance, in one study, 68% of women said that they would refuse to answer sexually harassing questions in a job interview, and 28% said they would openly confront the interviewer.  But when the interview actually happened, all of the women answered the offensive questions, and not one confronted the interviewer.

It’s no wonder so few are willing to confront sexism in the workplace (or anywhere else).  People usually want to avoid being seen as complainers, and assume that their objections will elicit very hostile reactions that will make their work environment even more tense and uncomfortable.  Why make it worse for myself? we think.  Just roll your eyes and try to ignore him.

Well, it turns out that there are three very good reasons why you should confront the perpetrator of a sexist comment.

1. It Won’t Be As Uncomfortable As You Think

Countless psychology studies show that people are surprisingly bad when it comes to predicting how an interaction with another person will go.  So it’s worth asking, how do men actually respond when they are confronted about sexism in this day and age?

The answer:  they are remarkably nice about it.

In a new study, conducted by Robyn Mallett and Dana Wagner at Loyola University Chicago, male participants were teamed with a female partner (who was actually a confederate in the experiment).  Their assignment was to read a set of moral or ethical dilemmas and discuss together how to deal with each situation, including one in which a nurse discovers that a hospital patient has been given tainted blood.

During their discussion, the female confederate confronted her male partner either for sexism (i.e., having assumed the nurse in the story was female, which every male participant did) or in a gender-neutral way (i.e., disagreeing with the male’s suggested solution to the dilemma).

As expected, men had much stronger reactions to being told that their remark was sexist than they did to mere disagreement.  But the reactions weren’t what you might expect.  The men accused of sexism smiled and laughed more, appeared more surprised, gestured more often and with greater energy, and were more likely to try to justify or apologize for their remark.   But they did not react with more hostility or anger – in fact, they reported liking the female partner in both conditions equally well, and were generally pleasant across the board.

It turns out that when it comes to offensive remarks, offenders are also susceptible to social pressure, just like the victims of sexism who are so reluctant to complain.

Men who make insensitive sexist comments usually want to avoid being seen as sexist jerks.  (Not always, but more often than not).  This tempers their response to confrontation, and as a result, they react less negatively or harshly than anyone might have imagined, including the men themselves.

2.  He Will Probably Be Nicer, and Like You More

Once confronted, perpetrators of offensive remarks are motivated to smooth the awkwardness of the situation.  In the study, men were significantly nicer to their female partner while discussing a second set of dilemmas after having been accused of sexism, than they were after merely being told they wrong.

The “sexists” were more agreeable, more likely to try to search for common ground with their partner – they even smiled at her more.  And because they had worked harder to make the relationship work, at the end of the study the men accused of sexism reported liking their partner more than those who weren’t accused of it.

3.  Being Confronted Makes You Less Sexist

Perhaps the best reason to confront sexism is that it is the single most effective tool we have if we want to get rid of it.

Hundreds of studies show that confronting bias (toward any group) actually improves intergroup perceptions and reduces future bias.   If no one points out to Jim that his remarks about women are offensive, it’s not likely he’s going to figure it out on his own.  And chances are, he doesn’t really want to offend you or anyone else.  Confronting him gives him a chance to see things from your point of view, and understand where his “innocent” comment went wrong.

Follow me on Twitter  @hghalvorson