Gender conditioning and the roles we play

Males are raised with a growth mindset. They are encouraged to try harder, which leads to continual learning and improvement. Females tend to be conditioned with a fixed mindset, given static labels such as ‘clever’, ‘good’. This mindset stops anyone from reaching her (or his) full potential.

When it comes to gender inequality (or indeed, any other unrelenting issue), it’s important to understand the root cause. In the case of gender diversity, gender differences are at the heart. True equality, and true inclusion, involves being aware of and appreciating diversity. Understanding how gender differences are created and knowing in what ways they can become barriers instead of something to be celebrated will allow us to take one big step closer to equality. In particular, we focus here on the covert sexism in society that both women and men experience – the latter part of the ‘nature versus nurture’ conundrum and where, when armed with awareness, we can make a change.

Our behaviour is moulded by society through constant positive or negative reinforcement, or punishment. This is how we learn that, in our culture, one should be punctual, look a conversational partner in the eye (but not for too long), and not pick one’s nose. These are unwritten rules by which we go about our everyday lives, and our daily interactions run more or less smoothly as a result.

The conditioning of our behaviour starts earlier than we might think. Gender conditioning begins at birth in something as innocuous as the name we are given. Dr. David Figlio, Director of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, concluded from a study that the more feminine a girl’s name (e.g. ‘Isabella’), the more likely she is to study humanities than to study traditionally ‘male’ subjects like advanced mathematics or sciences as compared to girls with more masculine names (e.g. ‘Alex’). The reason for this, Figlio states, is that girls are treated differently based on their names – even twin sisters, he observed. Notably, girls with more feminine names performed just as well when they did pursue more technical subjects.[i] In short, not only are we conditioned based on our maleness and femaleness, as many of us will recognised based on the toys we were given or the hobbies we were encouraged to pursue, for instance, but we’re also conditioned based on our perceived masculinity and femininity.

Fast-forwarding through a lifetime of interactions that result in compounding gender conditioning, we can get a sense of how our interactions will have shaped the roles we play in our work, our relationships (romantic and platonic), and our caregiving. Men, do you personally feel pressure from yourself or others to step back from family commitments and ‘nurturing’ behaviour and to focus on success and provision? Women, do you personally feel an expectation from yourself or others for you to do the opposite? And what perspectives are your clients and staff holding on these roles and expectations?

Gender conditioning also has an impact on the way we live day to day. Dr. Carol Dweck, Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, has researched the difference in mindset between males and females. She concludes, generally speaking, that males are raised with a growth mindset. They are encouraged to try harder and perform better, which leads to continual learning and improvement. Traits, like intelligence, are developed. On the other hand, females tend to be conditioned with a fixed mindset. They are given static labels such as ‘clever’, ‘beautiful’, ‘good’: qualities that are fixed rather than developed. This leads to avoiding challenges, giving up more easily, and ignoring what could be constructive criticism and opportunities for learning. Ultimately, it stops anyone in this mindset from reaching her (or his) full potential.[ii]

We clearly live in a gendered culture, though norms are changing and society is becoming increasingly egalitarian.[iii] Gender differences are neither inherently good nor bad – they just are. But what happens when gender norms aren’t so harmless?

When norms are not aligned to values

Last year I attended a conference and met a lovely man whom I’ll call Steven. We connected over an interesting and honest conversation on our learnings and remaining questions one morning. Later that day, I was chatting with another lovely man whom I’d met prior to the event; someone who was quite senior in the same company as Steven, whom we’ll call Philip. Steven approached our conversation, and introductions were made. It was then that the dynamic of our little group changed, and I found that Philip was meeting a very different Steven than I had. Upon hearing Philip’s title, Steven shared his own in an apologetic manner, citing the fact that, though he’d been at the company for a number of years, he must not have been ‘ambitious enough’ (his own words) to climb the corporate ladder. There was a clear clash between the company’s culture, with a perceived value of ambition, and a personal value Steven was honouring by staying with the same job for 15 years. This misalignment was having a negative impact on Steven and, by extension, on the company’s culture.

Putting a gendered lens to the situation, we know that ambition is a masculine trait, and that both men and women are often encouraged to strive for ‘more’ – for tokens of success, such as a title, salary, or job perks. Are we truly valuing the diversity of masculine and feminine traits – in ourselves and our companies?

When norms hold us back

The ways in which gender norms hold us back are often difficult to put a finger on, and tend to be easier to spot when we are in danger of breaking them. There are, unfortunately, a number of examples of this, from the man who overworked so much that he ended up in a neurologist’s office after an episode of which he has only a faint and patchy memory, to the woman who was not promoted because she was not ‘alpha female enough’ (both true), to the various other stories we hear from the media, friends, and colleagues. On a more lighthearted note, the first time I noticed my own conditioning holding me back was at 18 years old. I was working part-time in retail and a customer returned an item – a guillotine-style paper cutter – which was damaged aesthetically, but not functionally. A directive from the manufacturer was in place to destroy the item rather than ship it back. I took it to the part of the building where shipments were received, where there was plenty of room to do the necessary. I stared at the cutter in my hands, and I realised I hadn’t a clue how to break it. I was always taught to be careful (I can vividly recall my mother’s disappointment when I broke a wooden spoon more than 20 years ago). I thought about dropping it, which I knew wouldn’t do the trick. I thought how I might drop it from something higher. An agonising minute later (how difficult was this supposed to be?!), a male colleague passed through and I informed him of my dilemma. Within seconds, the arm of the cutter was used to whip the body of the cutter around and smash it on the concrete floor in a surprisingly satisfying manner.

These examples illustrate how gender conditioning impacts what we think, how we think, what roles we play, and how we behave. If we and our clients are to reach our full potential, we must be free to explore a full range of masculine and feminine traits. Becoming ever more aware of what stops us from doing so is a necessary step, and conditioning is a big part of this – not only moment-in-time reinforcement or punishment by someone else, but how we seek to avoid punishment by acting in line with societal norms.

Nicole is a regular columnist for Coaching at Work magazine, where this article originally appeared.

[i] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/29/theobserversuknewspages.uknews

[ii] Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. NY: Random House.

[iii] Spence, J.T. and Hahn, E.D. (1997). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale and Attitude Change in College Students

Psychology of Women Quarterly (March), 21:1, pp. 17-34.