WEBVTT - The Likeability Trap: with Alicia Menendez (Journalist) 0:00:04.040 --> 0:00:08.119 Big things happen when you're pretty, pretty bold, pretty clever, 0:00:08.800 --> 0:00:12.320 pretty strong. I'm Danielle Robe and each week my guests 0:00:12.360 --> 0:00:13.760 and I have conversations that. 0:00:13.760 --> 0:00:18.880 Put a new spin on pretty. This is pretty smart. 0:00:19.760 --> 0:00:22.520 Today's episode is about the likability trap. 0:00:23.200 --> 0:00:23.799 What is that? 0:00:24.520 --> 0:00:27.360 It's the impossible bind women are in to be viewed 0:00:27.640 --> 0:00:31.840 as a leader and a boss and still be likable. 0:00:33.000 --> 0:00:35.240 And if you're thinking, Danielle, what does that even mean? 0:00:35.720 --> 0:00:36.919 Let me give you one example. 0:00:37.360 --> 0:00:39.680 There was a study done in which researchers showed a 0:00:39.720 --> 0:00:43.160 series of videos where an individual was forced to choose 0:00:43.200 --> 0:00:46.680 between staying at work and dealing with a crisis or 0:00:46.720 --> 0:00:50.240 going home to tend to a sick child. Men had 0:00:50.280 --> 0:00:55.160 no penalty either way. Women were either competent and unlikable, 0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:59.640 or likable and incompetent. When men walk into a room, 0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:03.720 they are perceived as competent. When women walk into a room, 0:01:04.200 --> 0:01:10.399 they have to prove it. Our Guest Award winning journalist 0:01:10.520 --> 0:01:15.720 Alicia Menendez wrote a book about navigating likability. In it, 0:01:15.760 --> 0:01:18.720 she says, when women walk into a room, there are 0:01:18.760 --> 0:01:21.280 assumptions made about us, and many of us go to 0:01:21.360 --> 0:01:25.319 great lengths to undercut those assumptions. We know to always 0:01:25.319 --> 0:01:28.840 be prepared. We can't afford to slip up to us. 0:01:29.400 --> 0:01:32.959 Be yourself can sound like a dare a safe declaration 0:01:33.200 --> 0:01:37.800 only truly intended for those who are assumed to be competent, qualified, 0:01:38.240 --> 0:01:42.160 and powerful. The constant chatter of how women lead impedes 0:01:42.200 --> 0:01:45.640 them from leading and trying to be everything all at once. 0:01:46.160 --> 0:01:50.400 Women are straight up exhausted. This interview is actually a 0:01:50.440 --> 0:01:54.000 re error. It was the very first episode of Pretty Smart, 0:01:54.440 --> 0:01:58.640 but I felt like it deserved some more airtime one 0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:01.960 because we have so many new listeners since then. In 0:02:02.040 --> 0:02:05.840 two after this interview aired, I got messages from women 0:02:06.120 --> 0:02:09.360 all over the country. It seemed to have this domino effect, 0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:14.520 inspiring several book clubs and other interviews with Alicia. Her 0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:16.920 book changed me, and it gave me so much joy 0:02:16.960 --> 0:02:20.280 to hear and to feel that this conversation changed so 0:02:20.360 --> 0:02:23.280 many of you too. Even my mom, who is my 0:02:23.440 --> 0:02:26.959 greatest fan but my toughest critic she really does not 0:02:27.080 --> 0:02:29.800 lie to me, called me after this interview and said, 0:02:30.200 --> 0:02:32.280 I feel seen in my work life for the first 0:02:32.320 --> 0:02:35.960 time in thirty years after listening to this, and I 0:02:36.040 --> 0:02:36.440 know why. 0:02:36.520 --> 0:02:37.080 She said that. 0:02:37.800 --> 0:02:40.760 Alicia's book, The Likability trap gives us the words to 0:02:40.840 --> 0:02:42.880 explain what I think so many of us have been 0:02:42.880 --> 0:02:46.919 feeling for years and just didn't have the language to explain. 0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:52.720 Today's conversation covers what the likability trap actually is two 0:02:52.800 --> 0:02:56.720 concepts she deems the cardib effect and the Goldilocks conundrum. 0:02:57.040 --> 0:03:01.120 If you can be rewarded at work for authenticity. 0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:00.680 Who replies? 0:03:00.680 --> 0:03:02.640 You can use if someone says something to you that 0:03:02.720 --> 0:03:07.080 makes you uncomfortable at work, And ultimately we discuss if 0:03:07.120 --> 0:03:09.160 women can never get out of the trap. 0:03:21.280 --> 0:03:23.040 Alicia, it is such a trap. 0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:26.400 I felt like I had PMS for the last ten 0:03:26.520 --> 0:03:28.840 years of my career, and then I read your book 0:03:29.360 --> 0:03:31.639 and I thought, for the very first time, oh my god, 0:03:31.680 --> 0:03:32.440 maybe it's not me. 0:03:32.720 --> 0:03:33.840 So thank you for that. 0:03:34.160 --> 0:03:36.680 Thank you for reading it. Like writing a book is 0:03:36.720 --> 0:03:37.840 one thing, having the. 0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:41.080 Book find the person it was meant for, and then 0:03:41.120 --> 0:03:44.440 having that person actually read it is a whole other level. 0:03:44.720 --> 0:03:45.880 I've never thought about it that way. 0:03:45.920 --> 0:03:48.320 I love the idea of a book finding somebody because 0:03:48.320 --> 0:03:50.320 it does land in the hands of the person who's 0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:51.120 supposed to read it. 0:03:51.440 --> 0:03:52.160 That's very cool. 0:03:52.520 --> 0:03:55.400 I kind of have this armchair philosophy. It's definitely not 0:03:55.520 --> 0:04:00.000 research that people that go into passionate careers or feels 0:04:00.320 --> 0:04:02.960 do so in part to kind of heal themselves. And 0:04:03.040 --> 0:04:05.680 so my best guess when I was reading this book 0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:09.600 was that you fell into the likability trap. And I'm 0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:12.760 wondering if there was a moment that sort of catalyzed 0:04:12.800 --> 0:04:14.240 your wanting to write the book. 0:04:14.640 --> 0:04:17.400 I don't know that there is any single moment, so 0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:20.520 much as I think the process of getting into my 0:04:20.640 --> 0:04:26.000 thirties and realizing that I was in a lot of 0:04:26.040 --> 0:04:29.880 situations at work where I was really trying to please everyone. 0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:32.919 I was trying to please the people who I managed 0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:35.400 on my team, I was trying to please the people 0:04:35.440 --> 0:04:38.800 who managed me, and by that I mean both doing 0:04:38.800 --> 0:04:43.640 my work and delivering, but also being very pleasant and 0:04:44.080 --> 0:04:45.279 non demanding and non. 0:04:45.120 --> 0:04:47.040 Confrontational in the process. 0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:52.919 When I would assert what I wanted, two things would happen. One, 0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:56.800 I would often feel that the vibe in the room 0:04:56.960 --> 0:04:59.960 changed and all of a sudden, people sort of had 0:05:00.080 --> 0:05:02.279 their backs up a little bit. And then the second 0:05:02.320 --> 0:05:05.040 thing that would happen is I would leave the room 0:05:05.120 --> 0:05:08.760 or the meeting, and even if I accomplished what I 0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:11.599 wanted to accomplish, even if I received the thing that 0:05:11.680 --> 0:05:14.120 I was asking for, I would sort of have this 0:05:14.320 --> 0:05:18.839 likability hangover where I would then worry about the way 0:05:19.080 --> 0:05:19.760 that I had. 0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:20.760 Been in the room. 0:05:21.560 --> 0:05:24.279 And so in some ways it was it was that 0:05:24.480 --> 0:05:28.200 ladder piece, the hangover that I was initially really interested in. 0:05:28.440 --> 0:05:32.400 Why am I feeling so bad for asking for what 0:05:32.480 --> 0:05:36.440 I want and getting this response? And I imagined myself 0:05:36.480 --> 0:05:39.440 going like on an eke Prey love for likability, where 0:05:39.440 --> 0:05:41.480 I would, as a person who cares a lot about 0:05:41.520 --> 0:05:44.080 being well liked, do all these things to learn to 0:05:44.120 --> 0:05:47.000 care less. And what happened to Neil is that as 0:05:47.040 --> 0:05:51.560 I started interviewing other women, I met a lot of 0:05:51.600 --> 0:05:54.960 women who, like you and I, were governed by likability, 0:05:55.000 --> 0:05:56.960 people for whom it was really important. But then I 0:05:57.040 --> 0:05:59.440 also meant a lot of women who really didn't give 0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:02.600 a damn. And I imagine that those women were just 0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:05.520 out there living their best lives. And what I came 0:06:05.560 --> 0:06:08.400 to find is that even those women felt that they 0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:11.720 were paying a price for being so brazenly themselves. 0:06:11.920 --> 0:06:13.679 I was actually going to ask you about that, because 0:06:13.720 --> 0:06:18.120 there are moments, particularly, I think, in what we do, 0:06:18.160 --> 0:06:22.479 I'm on set and feel some of these things very blatantly, 0:06:23.160 --> 0:06:25.960 and I go home have the likability hangover, as you 0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:27.960 call it, which I love that term, And then I 0:06:28.000 --> 0:06:30.480 try and sift through it, and I think to myself, 0:06:31.160 --> 0:06:34.640 you're so sensitive, Danielle, Like, there must be women out 0:06:34.640 --> 0:06:38.279 there who just don't care. So you interviewed hundreds of 0:06:38.279 --> 0:06:40.440 people for this book. They don't care, but there's still 0:06:40.440 --> 0:06:41.159 a price to pay. 0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:42.640 Yeah, I mean, I think there are a lot of 0:06:42.640 --> 0:06:46.560 women who are very clear, very assertive, very direct, ask 0:06:46.680 --> 0:06:49.200 for what they want, ask for what they need, don't 0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:53.800 have those secondary feelings afterwards. But the truth is that 0:06:53.920 --> 0:06:57.960 we work and live in a culture, in a society 0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:01.880 where we social women and girls to care about what 0:07:01.920 --> 0:07:04.279 other people think of them. I think in some ways 0:07:04.360 --> 0:07:06.760 that can be really good and really powerful and not 0:07:06.839 --> 0:07:09.680 a thing we want to dismiss entirely, because I do 0:07:09.760 --> 0:07:13.760 want other people to feel good and seen and respected 0:07:14.080 --> 0:07:16.240 in my presence. It's actually a big part of what 0:07:16.280 --> 0:07:19.640 I pride myself on. The challenges when that cross is 0:07:19.760 --> 0:07:23.360 over into being dictated by it, right when it becomes 0:07:23.400 --> 0:07:25.480 the only thing you care about, when you don't feel 0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:28.280 you can authentically show up as your true self because 0:07:28.280 --> 0:07:31.000 you're always trying to please other people. And what I 0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:33.320 found with a lot of the women who aren't governed 0:07:33.320 --> 0:07:36.640 by it is they work in places where they have 0:07:36.800 --> 0:07:39.680 managers and bosses who feel like they should care, and 0:07:40.000 --> 0:07:43.280 that by being a woman who sort of just operates 0:07:43.280 --> 0:07:47.560 in the world without regard for what other people are 0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:52.280 thinking about them or feeling about them, that they often 0:07:52.280 --> 0:07:56.480 have gotten dinged for not caring. And so that became 0:07:56.560 --> 0:08:00.240 more interesting to me, Right, why is this expectation that 0:08:00.360 --> 0:08:03.360 women are supposed to care? And especially I think where 0:08:03.440 --> 0:08:06.400 this shows up is for women who are ambitious and 0:08:06.480 --> 0:08:10.600 for women who work in male dominated fields where leadership 0:08:10.680 --> 0:08:15.280 is framed round this very masculine notion of leadership, and 0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:18.679 where anyone who doesn't show up that way isn't seen 0:08:18.720 --> 0:08:20.800 as a leader, or anyone. 0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:23.240 Who does show up that way but is a. 0:08:23.160 --> 0:08:26.440 Woman is then seen is less likable because she's not 0:08:26.600 --> 0:08:28.640 showing up the way that we as a society and 0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:30.960 we as a culture expect women to show up. 0:08:31.280 --> 0:08:35.800 I thought you did such a wonderful job of characterizing those. 0:08:35.960 --> 0:08:38.120 The two that really stuck out to me as examples 0:08:38.160 --> 0:08:41.920 in the book were one women in politics and two 0:08:42.360 --> 0:08:44.720 women with children. So I'm wondering if we can kind 0:08:44.760 --> 0:08:48.000 of go through those categories. The women in politics, you 0:08:48.120 --> 0:08:51.360 just said that leadership is still framed through a male lens, 0:08:51.679 --> 0:08:54.840 which is I think like the overarching issue that we 0:08:54.920 --> 0:08:57.760 don't think about, even down to the way we're supposed 0:08:57.760 --> 0:08:59.439 to dress like a suit is powerful. 0:09:00.040 --> 0:09:02.120 But look at you in that leather blazer. See to me, 0:09:02.320 --> 0:09:03.760 you look so powerful. 0:09:03.840 --> 0:09:04.200 I love it. 0:09:04.280 --> 0:09:05.760 Thought a lot to know all about whether or not 0:09:05.920 --> 0:09:09.560 this past election cycle did begin to loosen up some 0:09:09.640 --> 0:09:14.160 of those frameworks. So for women in politics, the core tension, 0:09:14.320 --> 0:09:16.320 and the core at tension for all women is that 0:09:16.800 --> 0:09:19.680 we expect women to act communally, to want what is 0:09:19.679 --> 0:09:23.000 in everyone's best interest, to care about the team, not 0:09:23.040 --> 0:09:25.960 about herself, which is why when a woman says me 0:09:26.320 --> 0:09:28.560 or I, when she frames things around. 0:09:28.360 --> 0:09:30.679 Herself, people get really uncomfortable. 0:09:30.920 --> 0:09:34.200 And when you're running for office, even if you're running 0:09:34.200 --> 0:09:36.800 because you care about your community and you want everyone 0:09:36.840 --> 0:09:37.920 on your block. 0:09:37.720 --> 0:09:40.239 To have access to whatever it is, better water. 0:09:40.080 --> 0:09:43.200 Better schools, there is still the sense that you're putting 0:09:43.320 --> 0:09:47.240 your name, your hat into the ring, and that that 0:09:47.400 --> 0:09:50.240 act of raising your hand and saying I think I 0:09:50.320 --> 0:09:54.040 can do this already means that women begin as a 0:09:54.040 --> 0:09:56.679 deficit because we're not accustomed to seeing women do that. 0:09:57.320 --> 0:10:01.120 What I think this cycle may have changed was there 0:10:01.240 --> 0:10:04.440 were all of these women that were being considered very 0:10:04.480 --> 0:10:08.520 publicly to be Joe Biden's running mate. And I thought 0:10:08.559 --> 0:10:12.959 it was fascinating and powerful that, one by one, instead 0:10:12.960 --> 0:10:15.760 of doing what people normally do when their name is 0:10:15.800 --> 0:10:18.880 being floated for a vice president, which is to say, oh, 0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:21.640 I don't know, it would be an honor, but you know, 0:10:21.720 --> 0:10:26.320 I'm every single woman said yes, I would like this job, 0:10:26.679 --> 0:10:28.600 and let me tell you why I'm qualified, let me 0:10:28.640 --> 0:10:31.280 tell you why I'm the best candidate. And I thought 0:10:31.320 --> 0:10:34.000 it was so powerful that it wasn't just Stacy Abrams, 0:10:34.080 --> 0:10:37.520 it wasn't just Val Deeming's, it wasn't just Kamala Harris. 0:10:37.880 --> 0:10:41.720 It was an entire group of women who, one by 0:10:41.800 --> 0:10:45.800 one made it really normal to say I want this, 0:10:46.240 --> 0:10:48.439 I can do this, and if asked, I'm going to 0:10:48.520 --> 0:10:49.000 say yes. 0:10:49.520 --> 0:10:51.280 And I think there was a power. 0:10:50.920 --> 0:10:53.280 In the individual doing it, but I think there was 0:10:53.360 --> 0:10:56.520 even more power in the group doing it, because it 0:10:56.559 --> 0:11:00.080 became such a unifying factor that it meant you, I 0:11:00.080 --> 0:11:02.199 didn't pick it apart as strategy. 0:11:02.280 --> 0:11:04.640 One by one, it was just normal. It was what 0:11:04.679 --> 0:11:05.560 everybody was doing. 0:11:05.600 --> 0:11:08.680 And I think that is awesome, not just for women 0:11:08.720 --> 0:11:11.679 in politics, but for women in any industry. 0:11:11.880 --> 0:11:12.400 I agree. 0:11:12.440 --> 0:11:14.160 I think we saw it with the Me Too movement. 0:11:14.160 --> 0:11:17.480 A rising tide lifts all books. There's real power in numbers. 0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:20.120 The one thing I did see because I agree with you, 0:11:20.200 --> 0:11:23.679 but I heard a lot of people kind of substitute 0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:27.400 the word likability for electability. It felt like a synonym almost, 0:11:27.440 --> 0:11:29.000 we just decided to use a nicer word. 0:11:29.080 --> 0:11:34.120 Feel like it is a close cousin of likability. Everyone 0:11:34.200 --> 0:11:36.480 learned the lesson from twenty sixteen, where that was so 0:11:36.600 --> 0:11:38.800 much of the way that we talked about Hillary Clinton, 0:11:39.200 --> 0:11:41.560 and so it's like they trained themselves not to say it, 0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:42.960 like don't say it, don't say it, don't talk about 0:11:43.000 --> 0:11:44.600 how likable she is. And so they were like, but 0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:46.720 you know how we can talk about it by talking 0:11:46.720 --> 0:11:48.520 about whether or not she's electable, because its not about 0:11:48.520 --> 0:11:50.199 whether or not I like her, It's about whether or 0:11:50.240 --> 0:11:53.800 not these other amorphous Americans out here will like her. 0:11:54.520 --> 0:11:57.080 So yeah, we're we're not past it by any means. 0:11:57.080 --> 0:11:59.520 And I think you saw Kamala Harris come up against 0:11:59.520 --> 0:12:02.000 it in a number of ways. Some of them were 0:12:02.040 --> 0:12:04.920 about gender, some of them were racialized. I actually think 0:12:05.000 --> 0:12:07.440 she came up against the question even more during the 0:12:07.480 --> 0:12:12.800 primary when she brought critiques to Joe Biden and said, 0:12:12.920 --> 0:12:14.720 you know, this is part of your record and I 0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:16.960 want to talk about it. And it was very clear 0:12:17.120 --> 0:12:21.160 that he got dinged for just deigning to go toe 0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:21.800 to toe with him. 0:12:21.960 --> 0:12:24.400 I'm going to start using that in my mind, it's ding. 0:12:24.800 --> 0:12:28.000 I got dinged because it is. It feels like ding. 0:12:28.320 --> 0:12:29.000 I think you can do it. 0:12:29.000 --> 0:12:30.719 As much as you do it for yourself, you do it, 0:12:31.360 --> 0:12:34.680 watching when it happens to other women is equally powerful. 0:12:35.080 --> 0:12:36.680 Actually, what's your philosophy on that? 0:12:36.720 --> 0:12:40.079 Because I'm sure you're so tuned into it now you 0:12:40.200 --> 0:12:43.199 probably always were, but especially after writing the book and researching, 0:12:43.720 --> 0:12:46.600 how much do you try and go out of your 0:12:46.640 --> 0:12:49.679 way in situations to speak up when you hear it 0:12:50.000 --> 0:12:52.000 happening or see it happening to other people? 0:12:52.760 --> 0:12:54.000 Every time? Now? 0:12:54.040 --> 0:12:56.680 It is like a yes, because part and part of 0:12:56.679 --> 0:13:01.960 what I think it is too, is that a gentle 0:13:02.160 --> 0:13:06.160 probe will often go a long way. That if someone says, 0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:08.080 I don't know, I just don't like Danielle, that I 0:13:08.080 --> 0:13:09.880 could say, what do you mean by that? What do 0:13:09.920 --> 0:13:11.480 you mean when you say I don't like her? What 0:13:11.600 --> 0:13:14.520 is it about her that you don't like? And if 0:13:14.520 --> 0:13:17.480 you drill down, drilled down, drill down, you realize how 0:13:17.640 --> 0:13:22.080 subjective it often is, and how coded and loaded it is. 0:13:22.440 --> 0:13:24.640 And I actually think there are lots of opportunities to 0:13:24.880 --> 0:13:28.160 reframe language. And if someone says to me, she's a 0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:31.000 little indecisive, and I say, well, is she indecisive? Or 0:13:31.040 --> 0:13:35.200 is she deliberate? Is she aggressive? Or does she deliver 0:13:35.360 --> 0:13:39.320 for her team? Even words like helpful, which I've often 0:13:39.400 --> 0:13:42.560 described another woman as being helpful, and I have meant 0:13:42.600 --> 0:13:46.360 it as a positive attribute. Calling a woman helpful can 0:13:46.480 --> 0:13:49.520 often diminish her to just being a helper. So I've 0:13:49.600 --> 0:13:52.400 learned to say not just oh no, Danielle was really 0:13:52.440 --> 0:13:56.479 helpful in this project. But Danielle ran all our regression analysis. 0:13:56.760 --> 0:14:00.720 Danielle wrote all of the scripts, she prepared, all of binders. 0:14:00.960 --> 0:14:04.319 Whatever it is, the actual thing that the person brought 0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:08.440 and contributed helps people understand the value that they add 0:14:08.559 --> 0:14:10.840 much more than saying a woman is helpful, because when 0:14:10.960 --> 0:14:12.520 you do that, most often people are like, oh, she 0:14:12.559 --> 0:14:13.480 got everybody coffee. 0:14:13.640 --> 0:14:16.280 Drilling down to the specificity is one of the biggest 0:14:16.280 --> 0:14:18.480 takeaways I had from the book, and I loved when 0:14:18.480 --> 0:14:20.560 you said, because I think you and I are probably 0:14:20.840 --> 0:14:25.160 really sort of fueled by questions innately, and to use 0:14:25.280 --> 0:14:27.920 that as a tool is really powerful. I started saying 0:14:27.960 --> 0:14:30.760 to people if I heard an uncomfortable comment. 0:14:31.160 --> 0:14:32.040 Can you repeat that? 0:14:32.560 --> 0:14:35.960 Hearing themselves say it again I think made them realize 0:14:35.960 --> 0:14:38.520 that it was ridiculous. But there were two questions that 0:14:38.560 --> 0:14:40.720 you noted in the book that I really loved that 0:14:40.800 --> 0:14:43.960 when you get feedback from your employer, there are two 0:14:44.120 --> 0:14:45.000 things that you can say. 0:14:45.000 --> 0:14:46.920 I'm wondering if you can kind of talk about. 0:14:46.640 --> 0:14:50.640 That absolutely and I want to say these ideas. This 0:14:50.720 --> 0:14:53.800 came from an executive coach who I quote in the book, 0:14:53.880 --> 0:14:57.480 and most of the feedback that women get, the vast 0:14:57.520 --> 0:15:01.600 majority of feedback is critical subjective feedback, meaning that instead 0:15:01.600 --> 0:15:04.440 of talking about your results or about the work itself, 0:15:04.680 --> 0:15:07.920 very often in a formal or informal feedback session, it'll 0:15:07.920 --> 0:15:09.880 be about the way you use your hands, or the 0:15:09.920 --> 0:15:11.520 way you use your voice, or the way you sit 0:15:11.560 --> 0:15:14.440 in a chair, which for you and I actually is 0:15:14.560 --> 0:15:18.720 part of the work, but for many women is very 0:15:18.960 --> 0:15:21.400 tertiary to the work that they do. And so that 0:15:21.480 --> 0:15:24.120 if someone were in a feedback session and they were 0:15:24.160 --> 0:15:27.680 to say to you, you know, Melissa, you're just too assertive, 0:15:27.920 --> 0:15:32.520 that Melissa would say, okay, assertive compared to whom, meaning 0:15:32.520 --> 0:15:36.000 would you give that feedback? Would you qualify my style 0:15:36.160 --> 0:15:38.480 that way? If I were someone else in the office, 0:15:38.680 --> 0:15:41.080 It gives the person who's giving the feedback an opportunity 0:15:41.080 --> 0:15:43.640 to say, oh, let me think about that. 0:15:43.680 --> 0:15:44.440 I'm not sure I would. 0:15:44.480 --> 0:15:46.920 And then I think the second question is actually even 0:15:46.960 --> 0:15:49.640 more useful and more powerful, which is to say, Okay, 0:15:49.720 --> 0:15:52.440 can you draw a line for me from the way 0:15:52.480 --> 0:15:54.800 you see my style in the office to how it 0:15:54.920 --> 0:15:56.800 actually impacts. 0:15:56.320 --> 0:15:58.320 The results of my work? I think if you're going 0:15:58.360 --> 0:15:59.560 to ask that question. 0:15:59.360 --> 0:16:01.640 You also have to be open to the possibility that 0:16:01.720 --> 0:16:04.480 there is a connection between your style and how it 0:16:04.520 --> 0:16:10.800 impacts your work. But again, it pushes the conversation towards 0:16:10.840 --> 0:16:14.080 the work itself and towards results, which is what I 0:16:14.120 --> 0:16:16.480 heard from women again and again that that is really 0:16:16.520 --> 0:16:17.640 where they wanted. 0:16:17.440 --> 0:16:18.400 To see things headed. 0:16:18.480 --> 0:16:21.040 So as much as I think that's a good advocacy 0:16:21.080 --> 0:16:23.720 tool for yourself and you should use it, tomorrow and 0:16:23.840 --> 0:16:26.440 any type of feedback you have. I also think it 0:16:26.480 --> 0:16:28.920 is really powerful when you use it on someone else's behalf, 0:16:28.960 --> 0:16:31.200 when you ask those questions on someone else's behalf, Oh, 0:16:31.320 --> 0:16:33.520 she's too aggressive. Can you give me an example of 0:16:33.520 --> 0:16:37.000 where that impacted or work? And that for those of 0:16:37.040 --> 0:16:39.960 us who are managers or even just work with other teammates, 0:16:40.360 --> 0:16:43.640 that we are thinking critically about the feedback that we 0:16:43.680 --> 0:16:46.360 give and how much of it is about style and 0:16:46.400 --> 0:16:48.040 how much of it's actually about substance. 0:16:48.480 --> 0:16:50.640 So there are two ideals we must hold at once. 0:16:50.920 --> 0:16:53.880 That makes this such a catch twenty two, and you 0:16:53.920 --> 0:16:56.720 call this the Goldilocks conundrum. Can you kind of lay 0:16:56.720 --> 0:16:59.440 out what that catch twenty two is? The holding two 0:16:59.520 --> 0:17:00.600 ideals wants. 0:17:01.120 --> 0:17:06.960 We expect women to be warm and communal and want 0:17:07.000 --> 0:17:12.520 what's best for everybody. And we expect leaders to be 0:17:12.840 --> 0:17:18.280 direct and to be able to advocate for themselves. And 0:17:18.600 --> 0:17:20.560 that means that if you are showing up the way 0:17:20.600 --> 0:17:23.800 we expect a woman to show up, then people don't 0:17:23.800 --> 0:17:25.959 see you as a leader. And if you show up 0:17:26.040 --> 0:17:29.000 the way we've been conditioned to expect leaders to show up, 0:17:29.080 --> 0:17:31.680 then people think that you're violating what they expect from 0:17:31.720 --> 0:17:34.159 you as a woman. And so that is just the 0:17:34.280 --> 0:17:37.679 constant tension that women are running up against. And I 0:17:37.720 --> 0:17:40.800 think you see it most if you just think about 0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:44.040 most of the women in your life and the feedback 0:17:44.119 --> 0:17:46.679 that they've been given, which is they've either been told 0:17:46.840 --> 0:17:50.639 often that they are too assertive, too aggressive. 0:17:50.359 --> 0:17:51.639 Need to tone it down. 0:17:51.840 --> 0:17:54.600 That while they have what it takes to be seen 0:17:54.640 --> 0:17:56.439 as a leader, there are people in the office who 0:17:56.440 --> 0:17:58.960 they rube the wrong way or who may not like them. 0:17:59.160 --> 0:18:02.400 And then the other version of that, or the complete 0:18:02.400 --> 0:18:05.359 inverse of that, is a woman who everybody likes and 0:18:05.520 --> 0:18:10.639 everybody loves and just adores, so people aren't sure she 0:18:10.760 --> 0:18:13.240 has it, that she doesn't take up enough room, she 0:18:13.280 --> 0:18:15.320 doesn't take up enough oxygen. I mean, there are like 0:18:15.359 --> 0:18:18.160 a million euphemisms for the fact that people don't see 0:18:18.200 --> 0:18:20.760 her as a leader. And then what I find especially 0:18:20.760 --> 0:18:23.399 interesting is that there are a lot of women like 0:18:23.440 --> 0:18:26.480 myself who've been given both sets of feedback, have been 0:18:26.520 --> 0:18:29.880 told that we are too much or not enough. And 0:18:29.920 --> 0:18:33.320 that shows you, I think, just how subjective and context 0:18:33.320 --> 0:18:37.280 specific that feedback is. That there are certain environments where 0:18:37.320 --> 0:18:39.520 you're seen as really a sort of and then there 0:18:39.520 --> 0:18:41.960 are other environments where you are seen as not a 0:18:42.040 --> 0:18:43.399 sort of enough which tells. 0:18:43.119 --> 0:18:45.280 You you're you. 0:18:45.280 --> 0:18:47.639 You might be showing up as you exactly as you 0:18:47.720 --> 0:18:48.600 are all the time. 0:18:49.000 --> 0:18:50.760 It's not you that's always changing. 0:18:50.880 --> 0:18:54.480 Sometimes it is the expectation of the environment itself. 0:18:54.600 --> 0:18:58.760 Because it's also about the people giving the feedback as well, 0:18:58.880 --> 0:19:02.400 it's subjective to their own personal experiences. One of the 0:19:02.480 --> 0:19:06.119 largest pushbacks I hear when I talk to people about this, 0:19:06.359 --> 0:19:10.919 specifically men in positions of leadership, They say that they 0:19:10.920 --> 0:19:13.600 feel a lack of accountability from people, and so they're like, 0:19:13.640 --> 0:19:16.640 it's not a woman thing, it's a person thing. Of course, 0:19:16.680 --> 0:19:21.720 I want somebody who's likable, who's amiable, who has great 0:19:21.760 --> 0:19:25.560 people skills and can negotiate. Well, why is this so 0:19:25.600 --> 0:19:26.520 specific to women. 0:19:26.920 --> 0:19:29.520 I do think that people want to work with people 0:19:29.960 --> 0:19:32.520 that they like, and that is part of why I 0:19:32.600 --> 0:19:36.440 also don't feel it's as simple as being like, don't 0:19:36.480 --> 0:19:38.439 care about likability, just like, get over it. 0:19:38.720 --> 0:19:41.200 No. The challenge is. 0:19:41.760 --> 0:19:46.720 That what we see as a likable leader specifically has 0:19:46.800 --> 0:19:51.840 been defined in very masculine terms. That's also challenging if 0:19:51.880 --> 0:19:55.800 you are, you know, identify as a man and don't 0:19:55.840 --> 0:19:59.200 present in an uber masculine way, the same way that 0:19:59.359 --> 0:20:03.080 women get dinged at the workplace, ever, communicating in a 0:20:03.080 --> 0:20:04.760 way that approximates anger. 0:20:05.240 --> 0:20:07.560 If a man cries in. 0:20:07.560 --> 0:20:11.639 The workplace, that is an instant demerit like he is 0:20:11.680 --> 0:20:14.520 not seen as being as strong. 0:20:14.480 --> 0:20:17.679 Or as leaderly as he would be otherwise. And so 0:20:18.320 --> 0:20:20.440 it's about the fact that there's just. 0:20:20.520 --> 0:20:25.119