“I’m Speaking”: Gender Differences in Digital Workplace Communication
Agonizing silences. Accidental unmutes. Unfortunate freezing. If the last year has taught us anything, it’s that virtual communication comes with its own set of rules, faux pas, and anxieties. This high-tech form of interaction has allowed us to maintain social connections while remaining physically distant.1 There has been little consideration, however, of how identity descriptors, such as gender, impact our experience of communicating exclusively online, particularly in professional settings.
In April 2020, mere months into the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, The New York Times chronicled women’s experiences of struggling to make themselves heard in virtual meetings, citing frequent interruptions from male colleagues, minimal nonverbal cueing, and outright dismissal of their contributions.2 For many women, these patterns mirror what goes on during in-person gatherings.3 In fact, research has indicated that women correctly assume they will receive negative backlash from taking up too much airtime when speaking, a concern that is not shared by their male colleagues.4 The persistence of workplace bias and discrimination on the basis of gender is nothing new: women across a wide range of industries can attest to the endurance of these obstacles. But do gender differences in communication styles compound women’s experiences of being ignored?
The short answer is: yes. There are a number of variations in the ways that men and women tend to express themselves. From a young age, females are more likely to draw on relational language that brings people together and downplays their own status within a group. By contrast, boys are expected to use language to establish and reinforce their superiority amongst their peers, and to emphasize their strengths and achievements.5 Linguist Deborah Tannen (1995) notes that these differences continue from sandbox to boardroom, where men are often more comfortable taking credit and occupying the spotlight than their equally-qualified female coworkers. As a result, women can struggle to make their ideas heard in both educational and professional settings.
References
- Coronavirus: How can we stay in virtual touch with older relatives? (2020, March 18). BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51933618
- Gupta, A. H. (2020, April 14). It’s Not Just You: In Online Meetings, Many Women Can’t Get a Word In. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/zoom-meetings-gender.html
- Sandberg, C., and Grant, A. (2015). Speaking While Female. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/speaking-while-female.html
- Brescoll, V. L. (2011). Who Takes the Floor and Why: Gender, Power, and Volubility in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 622-641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212439994
- Tannen, D. (1995). The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1995/09/the-power-of-talk-who-gets-heard-and-why
- Tannen, D. (2013). The Medium is the Metamessage: Conversational Style in New Media Interaction. In Tannen, D. and Trester, A. M. (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
- Thompson, R. (2006). Gender and Electronic Discourse in the Workplace. In Barrett, M. and Davison, M. J. (Eds.), Gender and Communication at Work. New York: Routledge
- Gao, M. (2020, Dec. 1). Zoom shares continue falling after signs of slowing growth. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/01/zoom-shares-continue-falling-after-signs-of-slowing-growth.html
- Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K. (2008). Participation in class and online discussions: Gender differences. Computers & Education, 50, 718-724.
- Barrett, E. and Lally, V. (1999). Gender differences in an on-line learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 48-60.
- Kimbrough, A. M., Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., Dill, J. D. (2013). Gender differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than do men. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 896-900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.005.
About the Author
Hannah Chappell
Hannah is an experienced educator now completing a Master of Science degree in the Psychology of Economic Life at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She holds a BA in English and Psychology from Hamilton College as well as an MA in modern literature and culture from University College London. Hannah is passionate about using behavioral science to improve organizations and public services, particularly in the areas of education and healthcare.
About us
We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy
Our insights are leveraged by the most ambitious organizations
“
I was blown away with their application and translation of behavioral science into practice. They took a very complex ecosystem and created a series of interventions using an innovative mix of the latest research and creative client co-creation. I was so impressed at the final product they created, which was hugely comprehensive despite the large scope of the client being of the world's most far-reaching and best known consumer brands. I'm excited to see what we can create together in the future.
Heather McKee
BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST
GLOBAL COFFEEHOUSE CHAIN PROJECT
OUR CLIENT SUCCESS
$0M
Annual Revenue Increase
By launching a behavioral science practice at the core of the organization, we helped one of the largest insurers in North America realize $30M increase in annual revenue.
0%
Increase in Monthly Users
By redesigning North America's first national digital platform for mental health, we achieved a 52% lift in monthly users and an 83% improvement on clinical assessment.
0%
Reduction In Design Time
By designing a new process and getting buy-in from the C-Suite team, we helped one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world reduce software design time by 75%.
0%
Reduction in Client Drop-Off
By implementing targeted nudges based on proactive interventions, we reduced drop-off rates for 450,000 clients belonging to USA's oldest debt consolidation organizations by 46%