I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed watching Aussie prime minister Julia Gillard's recent public demolition of her opposite number, Tony Abbott, over his call for the speaker, Peter Slipper, to resign. So often, we women feel we have to rein in our passion when we seek to influence in a work context because somewhere along the line we have been tipped off that appearing 'too emotional' is a bad thing. Clearly Julia Gillard has not had the same counsel or has wisely chosen to ignore it! Interestingly, Australia has more than its fair share of females at the top and so maybe their feisty manner has helped in this respect.
There is no doubt that women have to operate in a narrower band of behaviours to be palatable at work. Dominant behaviour, whilst seen as a desired leadership trait in a man, can be interpreted as aggressive or shrill behaviour in a woman. Emotional behaviour in a man gets described as sensitive, but is seen as weak in a woman. There is a real double bind here for women. If they behave in a stereotypically male fashion then that might get them to the top, but it's hard for these women to gain followers. Other women don't aspire to be like them and it actually puts more junior women off climbing the career ladder because they feel that the atmosphere at the top is likely to be fairly noxious. And conversely, if women use more stereotypically female behaviours the chances are that they will be seen as good support staff but not really 'leadership material' because they are not dominant enough.
So many women that I coach are trying desperately to hide their emotions in business, largely because men find them uncomfortable and they are thus labelled as unprofessional. There is a whole body of literature and associated training out there to help women 'play the game' more effectively. Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office is a good example of the genre. Courses are targeting women to help them to develop male traits, notably around assertiveness and resilience. The recent Board Babe blog in The Telegraph is a perfect example of trying to fight fire with fire. The Board Babe deals with an onslaught of macho, aggressive put-downs with her own sassy, equally macho comebacks. I strongly disagree with this 'fix the women' style of approach. Rather than women feeling like they should act more like men, my experience of coaching both men and women is that women's generally more collaborative style and more prudent approach to risk appears to chime closer with the particular demands of today's workplace. I much prefer to help women find their own leadership signature which may well embrace emotionality. As human beings, both men and women are emotionally wired and making our feelings known to others can be a much faster and more powerful method of influence. I think authenticity is the key here. When genuinely held emotion is used in an authentic and considered manner, the results can be surprisingly positive and effective. Women need to own their emotionality more. It's part of what makes us tick.
Returning to Gillard's empassioned speech, there has been an interesting postscript to it. Gillard's approval rating rose significantly in the first opinion poll held since then. The poll showed that her personal standing had improved among both men and women. Her disapproval rating had also dropped. Poll findings also show Gillard 10 points clear of Abbott in terms of preferred leader. As the pollsters point out, it is hard to attribute Gillard's poll success purely to her speech, but it certainly looks like it has done her little harm. This is in spite of mainstream media in Australia generally having been critical of the speech. Social media on the other hand largely sided with the prime minister, something subsequently reflected in the poll results. In the end, the speaker resigned anyway and so Julia Gillard didn't win the battle, but I think she may have holed her opposite number under the waterline and may go on to win the war - to use a mixed, and dare I say it, quite male, metaphor!