We are bombarded with signals all day, every day.
Economists have long used signaling theory to describe the environment between signalers (typically, an organization) and receivers (e.g. consumers, the market) (Connelly et al., 2011). In recent years, signaling theory has made its way into the realm of social science and management research. Signals, particularly those experienced through organizational language, values, and internal programs, co-create an organizational reality, both consciously and subconsciously. In male-dominated organizations, language, values, and programming serve as signals to women and inform their meaning-making process.
Across global cultures and languages, male is the default. The male default is a powerful signal that reinforces traditional gender-focused power stratification in the workplace. Recent research on gender-fair language uncovers how deeply entwined language and stereotypes (a product of culture and signaling) are, including how the use of gender-unfair language deters women from aspiring to roles or professions traditionally dominated by men (Sczesny et al., 2016). Gender-stereotypical language in the workplace acts as a signal to people of all genders in the organization. The interpretation of the signal is a form of meaning-making: the receiver must consider their individual context for gendered language (their background, native culture, etc.) and the organizational context (values, mission, purpose) to understand their place in the organization.
Language informs and contextualizes values. As the research of Carol Gilligan and Sally Helgesen has found, “traditional forms of organization are often dominated and shaped by male value systems” (Morgan, 2006). Organizational values are often vividly experienced in workplace learning and development programming. For women in the workplace, the experience of attending a women’s leadership development program can be a crash course in organizational values signaling. Researchers have long-acknowledged the importance of women-segregated leadership development programs (WLDPs). WLDPs provide women space to learn from each other’s experiences and share in a safe and constructive environment (Debebe, 2011; Debebe et al., 2016). However, researchers have also recognized that WLDPs can be perceived as a means to “fix the women” without acknowledging the structural and cultural practices that disadvantage women (Debebe et al., 2016; Johnson et al., 2023).
Many WLDPs focus on curricula that emphasize stereotypically masculine value systems, which often reflect organizational values. Employee perception of WLDPs extends from the interpretation of a signal (such as language used in the marketing of a WLDP) and is. It is a critical piece of the meaning-making process.
In her Harvard Business Review blog article co-authored with Brad Johnson and David Smith, scientist Heather Christensen describes how she felt after receiving an email from a senior male colleague with the suggestion she apply to a WLDP. Days before receiving the email she won a prestigious leadership award from a professional organization; and here was a man she worked with suggesting she still needed to “do more.”
Breaking down the signaling environment of this example:
The signaler (Heather’s male colleague)
Sent the signal (an email with WLDP information)
To the receiver (Heather)
Who interpreted it (as a negative commentary on her existing leadership skills)
In the signaling environment, an email is not just an email, but an expression of the leadership traits valued by the organization. Heather interpreted the email to mean that her style of leadership is not valued by her male colleagues (and perhaps the organization as a whole). Though this may seem like a leap, if reality is both co-created and individually experienced, then perception is reality (Morgan, 2006).
In an organizational setting, “you are what you are seen and experienced as being” (Morgan, 2006, p. 143).
For some women in male-dominated organizational spaces, incompatible contexts yield mixed messaging and constrain meaning-making. Of course, the question must be asked, how much of this is the organization’s responsibility? How much can the organization truly control if each employee brings their individualized subculture into the office?
Leadership may not be positioned to control for all variables. Still, in the formation of organizational culture, care should be taken to align language, values, programming, and action to create equitable meaning-making experiences for employees of all genders.
Works Cited
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
Debebe, G. (2011). Creating a Safe Environment for Women’s Leadership Transformation. Journal of Management Education, 35(5), 679–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562910397501
Debebe, G., Anderson, D., Bilimoria, D., & Vinnicombe, S. M. (2016). Women’s Leadership Development Programs: Lessons Learned and New Frontiers. Journal of Management Education, 40(3), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916639079
Iseke, A., & Pull, K. (2019). Female Executives and Perceived Employer Attractiveness: On the Potentially Adverse Signal of Having a Female CHRO Rather Than a Female CFO. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 1113–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3640-1
Johnson, W. B., Smith, D. G., & Christensen, H. (2023, March 8). Where Women’s Leadership Development Programs Fall Short. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2023/03/where-womens-leadership-development-programs-fall-short?autocomplete=true
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (Updated ed). Sage Publications.
Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M., & Moser, F. (2016). Can Gender-Fair Language Reduce Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination? Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00025
Comentários