Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAngry Men Get Ahead While Angry Women Penalized: Study
NEW YORK - A man who gets angry at work may well be admired for it but a woman who shows anger in the workplace is liable to be seen as "out of control" and incompetent, according to a new study presented on Friday.
What's more, the finding may have implications for Hillary Clinton as she attempts to become the first female U.S. president, according to its author Victoria Brescoll, a post-doctoral scholar at Yale University.
Her research paper "When Can Angry Women Get Ahead?" noted that Clinton was described last year by a leading Republican as "too angry to be elected president."
Previous research has indicated that anger can communicate that an individual feels entitled to dominate others, and therefore perhaps is. But in a paper to be delivered at a weekend conference, Brescoll said such studies focused on men.
"As Senator Clinton's experience suggests, however, for a professional woman anger expression may lead to a decrease rather than an increase in her status," Brescoll wrote.
She conducted three tests in which men and women recruited randomly watched videos of a job interview and were asked to rate the applicant's status and assign them a salary.
In the first, the scripts were identical except where the candidate described feeling either angry or sad about losing an account due to a colleague's late arrival at a meeting.
Participants conferred the most status on the man who said he was angry, the second most on the woman who said she was sad, slightly less on the man who said he was sad, and least of all by a sizable margin on the woman who said she was angry.
SALARY GAP
The average salary assigned to the angry man was almost $38,000 compared to about $23,500 for the angry woman and in the region of $30,000 for the other two candidates.
In a second experiment, the script was similar except that the job applicant also described his or her current occupation as a trainee or a senior executive.
"Participants rated the angry female CEO as significantly less competent than all of the other targets, including even the angry female trainee," Brescoll wrote. She said they viewed angry females as significantly more "out of control."
That impacted salaries. Unemotional women were assigned on average $55,384 compared to $32,902 for the angry ones. Male executive candidates were assigned more than trainees, regardless of anger, with an average $73,643.
A third experiment tested whether a good reason for anger made any difference. The script was changed so that some angry candidates explained that the co-worker who arrived late had lied beforehand, indicating he had directions to the meeting.
Sure enough, the angry woman with a good reason to be angry was awarded a much higher salary than the angry woman who provided no excuse, though it was still less than the men.
The study, to be presented this weekend at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, a research and teaching organization with nearly 17,000 members, found similar attitudes to anger among male and female participants.
"It's an attitude that is not conscious," Brescoll said. "People are hardly aware of it."
Brescoll said the findings revealed a "difficult paradox" for professional women -- while anger can serve as a powerful tool to achieve status at work, women may have to behave calmly in order to be seen as rational.
© Reuters 2007.
29 Comments so far
Show Allpeachmcd,
what an interesting post! I particularly enjoyed your constructive examples and look forward to using them at the next appropriate moment.
•I get angry about what has happened to our language, and what that says about how we think ... or don't think. Look at this string of cliches. What a way to start off on a Monday morning:
Authoritarianism ... mindless testosterone ... chickenhawk poser machismo ...
movie-hero conditioned ... piss me off .. Women in this country need to wake up and come together! They aren't going to be taken seriously, or be where they should be in our society, until they learn how to take themselves and each other seriously! ... mindset ... At this point I want to get really mad and go on a tirade about how fucked the global caucasian patriarchal order has screwed everyone……… creep me out ... documented fact ...boundaries ... pundits ... shit ...
asnet 8.6.7 7:50 am EDT
Yeah, I could've been a real example of that study. I would raise my voice if I thought I and others in the office were being treated unfairly. For that "righteous" anger, I received the label of "spastic." As a result, I was passed over for promotions and given warnings. Meanwhile, men and a few "favorite" women could throw any kind of fits they wanted whenever--and they were given raises and promotions without problems--and I had to take up the slack of the work they left behind. Sound familiar, anyone? That's why I avoid, as much as possible, working for a corporation. I'm a freelance writer and teach in colleges. I feel better. You know what? I don't get angry that often anymore.
Since women, like other outgroups, are never fully adult (or even fully human), a woman's emotional expression is, by definition, a hallmark of immaturity. In women, expressions of anger reflect an unacceptable lack of control over destructive impulses. An angry woman is a danger to the status quo--hence, the powerful social sanctions against the expression of anger by women.
I agree with other posters for the need for similar research assessing perceptions of anger in racial and other minorities. I predict that we will see similar results. Groups with power must fear those they exploit: they have a lot invested in keeping outgroups passive. The last thing they want is to legitimize the anger of outgroups, because what comes next-- revolution (gulp)?
I am reminded of all of those sleepless nights Martha Washington spent after George's demise, wondering when the family slaves--male and female-- would climb the stairs and express some ANGER.
PEACEMCD: Excellent points!
Let me share a funny anecdote. A friend of mine got her very angry husband to go for counseling, and the counselor used various scenarios and imagery to solicit a response from this guy. The ONLY emotion he could identify with WAS anger. There was a book recently published about the way our society won't let boys cry. The author, ? Pollack believed that when tears are not shed, the net result is a lot of pent-up aggression.
I get very emotional about matters of injustice, a quality that to me comes with being a fire sign. I have met people who have mistaken this energy--which I see as PASSION--for anger; and even been scolded that such articulation is "not spiritual." It reminds me of how Jesus must have felt when he turned over the tables of the money changers inside the temple. Many presume that passivity = a state of grace. I do not. We come in different flavors and are destined to express in different ways. People who do NOT emote are probably the most dangerous. Of course the "golden rule" also applies in that no one has the right to emote at another's expense. My passion concerns the misuse of principles or power, as is so daily the case with our disgusting masquerade of "leaders." Hence, this forum as righteous anger outlet!
It's a documented fact that the same personality traits that get a man (of whatever race) labeled 'leadership material' get a woman (of whatever race) labeled 'bitch'.
Anger is a necessary, useful emotion. It lets us know where our boundaries lie. What's critical at that point is the constructive use of that information.
There's a big difference between anger and violence. Our tolerance of male violence kills. The constructive, non-violent assertion of important boundaries (e.g., constitutional, environmental, humane) could have prevented a lot of the troubles we face today in the US.
Interesting parallel for me is the way 'liberals' are dismissed by pundits as 'angry' when they become understandably exercised about lies told and outrages committed by this administration. As if having that emotion invalidated their opinion altogether. But when 'conservatives' get their shorts twisted up (e.g., about gay marriage or immigration), it's called 'righteous anger' or 'defending values', and the topic is placed on the media front burner.
In Right wing rhetoric, 'liberal' is often paired with 'effeminate'. So the values that progressives urgently defend are dismissed, as if we were women. How do you male progs feel about that?
What if we started calling them on that sexist shit? And calling anyone on it when they dismiss an angry woman's point simply because she's angry?
The constructive move when faced by an angry person is to acknowledge the emotion, examine the boundary that anger is showing us, and express explicitly what we think about the boundary, rather than the emotion.
Examples:
"You sure sound angry, and I respect your desire for all of us to share housework equitably."
"You're certainly upset about this, but I can't allow you to exclude so many people from civil rights and constitutional protections."
"You certainly sound determined, but We the People can't allow you to assume dictatorial powers."
underpaid.
when i get treated with condecention, my self respect tells me to put the person in his or her place. if that doesn't work, i tell them to go fxxk themselves. i guess that is why i am a self employed, unpaid janitor. lol. my independance and self respect trumps any amount of money. i am quite happy with the simple life. :)
I have had problems with work place politicians. Deceitful and sneaky bosses are worse than angry ones.
If the boss is angry without cause you can hunker down and avoid them. If the boss is angry for a reason just don't do it again.
If the boss is trying to climb higher by using the handles of the knives sticking out of coworker and subordinates' backs there is nothing you can do.
Unless someone is acting out anger or sadness saying he or she is angry or sad has much more to do with descriptive word choice. I cannot understand how viewers would have such differing reactions based on words.
You're right - an angry boss of either sex is a bad boss.
I'm a little tired of these studies that are basically confirmatory bias backed by a grant.
I'm a man. I don't like working for angry men or women. I don't admire men who abuse those beneath them, and the same would go for women. I have experienced it from both genders.
Paul Bramscher makes a good point about being angry at the right people. I've usually been angry at those on my job level or above, and I've been penalized for that for sure.
It's why as a male, I am somewhat insulted by the notion that I would admire or even respect an angry boss. I never met an angry boss, male or female, that was competent or fair. And even so...why would I look up to anyone who is abusive unless I was just like them or had no self-respect?
Maybe it's because I've never been entrenched in the corporate world, and I have talked about the corporate types elsewhere. Male or female, they both kinda creep me out, and they suually don't get to where they are via hard work, intelligence, or ethics.
Not that I don't believe in pay equity, but don't expect me to shed a tear for the suits either. I'll reserve that for working and poor men and women.
Hey, are the suits looking out for my best interests whether they are female or male? I'd reckon I'm working-stiff-white-trash to many of them.
Anger is good when directed properly though. Part of the problem is that people are angry at the wrong people and things.
To paraphrase Donald Scales, "We get angry at people to the left of us and to the right of us, but never at the people above us."
Angry women make great comedians, though. Like when HRC tries to justify her vote to grant Cheneybush dictatorial powers... ha ha ha.
We live in a society that has a double standard with regard to public expressions of emotion. Men are weak if they cry; women are expected to cry because they are weak. Anger is an "okay" emotion for men to express but it's unlady-like for a woman to express it, or "she's just having a temper tantrum." Something is wrong with a society that doesn't allow people to be honest about the emotions they are feeling.
As a woman, I can say this study certainly hits the nail on the head, figuratively speaking of course. My own public displays of anger kept me from getting ahead in any endeavor I attempted. (Even a sigh of boredom would be labeled "inappropriate".) The anger wasn't an every day occurrence, and most of the time I was relatively "nice" (as most "good" women in our society are expected to be.) But within a month after an explosion at work, I would be "laid off" from my job, being told, "The company is being restructured." Riiight.
After 50 years of living with undiagnosed bi-polar disorder and ADHD, it was somewhat of a relief to find out the cause of my "hair trigger temper". Of course, it's still not acceptable to express any negative emotion publicly; worse yet is the stigma of having a mental illness. Heaven forbid if anyone ever finds THAT out about me.
And finally, when I'm angry, I AM NOT HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM! Get over it!
"Can you think of any similarly derogatory terms for an angry man?"
I prefer Richard Cranium :-)
I have worked with a lot of them and have likely been considered to be one my self on more that one occasion. That was before I gained enlightenment ;-)
"Can you think of any similarly derogatory terms for an angry man?"
Well, yeah, the general usage seems to be one that starts with "a" and ends with "e"...
There's a not-very-nice word in common parlance that is applied to any woman who is noticeably angry, whether she has a right to be or not. (It's often applied to Hillary Clinton by pundits on the right.) Can you think of any similarly derogatory terms for an angry man? Try again if you're thinking of one that impugns the wedded state of his mother at the time of his birth.
It sounds like they didn't actually 'show' anger, they "described feeling either angry or sad about losing an account due to a colleague's late arrival at a meeting." So, this is less about getting angry at work, or getting angry at someone than being allowed to say that you had felt anger because of a situation. It's a subtle, but important difference. With that subtlety in mind, it would have been interesting to see if there was a reaction based on race. Some of the people in script may have been people of color - it would be interesting to find out.
ezeflyer - is it unattractive lesbian characteristic, or unattractive characteristic of a lesbian? attractive lesbians want to know.
Z.P.F.,
Agreed! It seems preposterous this study didn't also look at US minorities. Don't dare be an angry black man...
It's all about who you get angry at. If you get angry at people below you, upper-level management may see that as a sign of high expectations, ruthlessness, etc. and take no small degree of pleasure in that. Anything to keep the down down.
If you get angry at management, of course, it's the kiss of death.
Angry entails what's known in the philsophy of mind as "intentionality". That is, it requires something to be "angry about" (or someone to be angry at).
Also interesting to ponder is a piece of profound wisdom once espoused on the Canadian "Red Green" show. That is, it may well be that some people are just plain angry personalities. Perhaps they need to go hunting for things to be angry about, as a byproduct of anger rather than as a cause of it.
At this point I want to get really mad and go on a tirade about how fucked the global caucasian patriarchal order has screwed everyone………but I don't want to appear like one of those "angry black men"…..so I'll just sit and nod in agreement. Maybe use a couple of tag questions too...???
Women in this country need to wake up and come together! They aren't going to be taken seriously, or be where they should be in our society, until they learn how to take themselves and each other seriously!
So many women are still in the mindset that women ARE inferior to men, that men ARE the dominant sex, and that women shouldn't try to be equal, or even have the right to get into "the male domain." There's also a whole lot of women who believe a woman's place is in the home, taking care of her family," and a larger number that believe we aren't ready for a woman in the White House, and that a woman couldn't handle the job of President.
"Unemotional women were assigned on average $55,384 compared to $32,902 for the angry ones."
Is it really just unemotional versus angry? What about people of all sexes who communicate nonviolently? Shouldn't they be the ones who are rewarded? I know I wouldn't want to work with someone prone to bouts of shouting and spraying insults at people, slamming things...no one should be rewarded a higher salary for that.
Damn, that pisses me off!
We needed a study to know this???
The same goes for Minorities -Right?
Or are they not even in the picture?
This has been true in my experience also.
figures
Authoritarianism in men is a product of mindless testosterone or chickenhawk poser machismo that we've been movie-hero conditioned to think is leadership. In women it is seen as an unattractive lesbian characteristic.