The Likeability Dilemma

The TED Talk discussed is called "The Liability Dilemma" with Robin Hauser. It explores the challenge of women leaders needing to be likable and the persistence of modern-day sexism. The speaker shares personal stories and highlights the subtle sexism that still exists in society, where strong and competent women are often seen as aggressive. The talk also addresses the need to redefine leadership norms to allow women to be their authentic selves. The speaker references a study that shows women leaders are often judged less likable than their male counterparts, even when they possess the same competencies. Overall, the talk raises important questions about gender biases and the expectations placed on women in leadership roles. Hello, and welcome to Heels in the Hierarchy. Today, we are going to talk about a TED Talk called the Liability Dilemma with Robin Hauser. And it was made in 2022. The reason that we've decided to discuss this TED Talk is that one of the things that we have spoken about before is the challenge of the expectation that women leaders have to be likeable, or that they can't be likeable if they're going to be good leaders. Did you want to start with what the highlights were for you? For me, when Robin was speaking, I was also trying to watch her go in. Do I want to listen to her? And I always challenge myself when I'm hearing that. And she's engaging, so I quite, I tuned in quite quickly. What was interesting for me is, I'd like to challenge the research in which she backed up her thinking was quite fascinating. But actually, some of the stories shocked me. So one of the stories that she opens up with, for those who haven't watched it, and I'd really encourage you to re-watch in the comments and have a look in the 10-minute clip, but actually has a lot in it, which is quite difficult to pull out all the interesting elements to it. But one of them is about a story that she went skiing on her own, and she got interrupted by a man that actually asked her, excuse me, are you with a husband or fiance? And she responded, no, and then carried on. But then actually curiosity got to her and asked her why it even matters. The response was, I'm selling timeshares. It's a real estate thing. And then she responded with, well, don't you start with women? Oh, are you interested? He says. And he says, no. But do you know that women carry checkbooks as well? And then he responded, well, lady, you're tough. But actually, why was it that she was tough? She just asked the question, because in the modern day, that was when she did the score, what, even two years ago. And yet it was another sexist remark of he wouldn't be selling to her unless he was just with a man and actually didn't know his story, didn't know his position, didn't know anything. And that shocked me. Again, it's so easy to forget that actually these things still happen. You are gender-typed regardless of your role or what you do. And that was one thing I was like, oh, yeah, and actually the way that she said curiosity got back to her. But also, how often do we challenge and not challenge things that are gender biased? Because I remember a story when somebody said to me, I was running an event, and I was just, who do you think will be doing this role? And I remember being so shocked that I didn't even challenge, a, the premise that he's completely sexist on the looks alone and actually bend it. He was in that as a hidden compliment, but it was actually an insult because it's in my role as a leader. That kind of just took me back, same as this one really did. But it was a male counterpart who thought it was okay to compliment, but actually it wasn't a compliment because it was back around what I was doing in my role. So that kind of reminded me of that a little bit. I thought, ah, it's frustrating that these things still happen. One of the things that I thought was quite interesting was that she talked about modern day sexism. She talked about, has anything changed? And I think that's a valid question. But in the modern day, we're still talking about sexism. It was kind of adding modern day to sexism because we know sexism has gone on since the dawn of time. But the fact that we almost think that we have to reframe modern day sexism as an evolution from olden day sexism, whereas old sexism is inappropriate, you know? And I quite like the fact that she said it was subtle, subtle sexism. And the sexism towards you, he hid the sexism in the compliment. And that's massively sexist. It's almost as if modern day sexism has become more sophisticated, perhaps, because we have different expectations in the modern age. And yet it's still there. This was recorded in 2022. And she's still being asked if she's got a husband or a fiancé in tow. It's madness, isn't it? You can't even tell. And it goes back, I suppose, when we're looking at the qualities that we value in leadership. And actually, we think that sex has nothing to do with it. It does have everything to do with it, still. And I think the thing that's quite challenging around what she talks about is that the sad truth is that strong, likable, strong, competent women are hard to like. They don't go together. Strong, competent women can be seen as aggressive or too assertive. If a woman is being firm, she is being a bitch or she is being aggressive. If a man is being firm, he's being assertive. It's very rare that if a man is being firm, you actually call him a bastard. Whereas I think more often, women are called bitches more regularly in a leadership position. Yeah, that's so true. What have you found quite interesting from that? So thinking about the thing as a whole, one of the things that she talks about was how she is judged by women as well as men. And we know that women judge other women. I haven't necessarily given them credit for being assertive. And re-watching the video through that particular lens made me question whether I am sexist towards other women, which I thought was really interesting. I thought that the point that she talks about the definition of what we look for in women, and we want them to be kind, nurturing, helpful, supportive, and deferential. And those are, I think, broadly seen as female traits. How might we perceive a man who is kind, helpful, and supportive? I think we see that as being positive traits in a man. But how would we react if we saw a man being nurturing or deferential? And how would that affect our view of his leadership capabilities? So when I was looking at it through a somewhat more critical lens, that was something that really stood out for me, how we've almost got into accepted norms of what it is to be male or female, and accepted norms of what it is to be a leader. And most often, the leader norm is masculine. And when a female tries to shape herself into that masculine mold, the reaction of both men and women is negative, very often, and seeing men as being bitches, unless that woman leader can get the balance between the assertiveness, and the nurturing, and the deferential. And that's quite confusing then, isn't it? So if you are working towards, so even, for example, as a therapist, you are all of the above, you can't be a someone that's so assertive and indestructible, and you can't be that with clients. So naturally, you are taught about being person-centered, thinking about the clients, you would think naturally, that becomes a natural trait. So you're working with being helpful, you're working with what's known, you're being supportive, and then becoming a leader in that. So running other elements, and going out in the therapist room, you're taking on other roles, which isn't natural to you. But you're having to do that in order to run a business or to run things that are strategic, or elements that are naturally in the stereotypical role that would have been previously. And I think that is the difficulty, is the challenge of the fact that we're allowing the stereotype of the masculine leader to continue. And therefore, we're expecting, as women, to fit in that mold. And therefore, that's why it's a dilemma, because we're fitting in something that isn't authentic to us. And we talk a lot about the authentic leader. Or is it the fact that actually, this whole challenge is around challenging the masculine norm, to be taking that challenge and that whole masculinity in the first place, and enabling someone to be authentic self, regardless of that. But that is a huge cultural shift, if we think about it that way. I think that's really interesting. We've got the evolution of leadership, when most leadership roles throughout history have been filled by men. But what we're still trying to do as women is to shape ourselves into the male leadership role, get frustrated when we get seen as not being authentic in that role, rather than reshaping the role in the first place. So what came to mind was almost like a gingerbread man cutter that you would use in cooking. And that's kind of like my vision of male leadership. And we're trying to sort of like shove our gingerbread dough into the same shape. And what we should be doing is going, let's just reshape that. Let's make it a triangle or a circle or something different. Because that's perhaps where some of our frustration as women is, because we're trying to be authentic, which is really important to women, we are more than capable of holding our own in a male dominated environment and being an equal to a man in any number of ways. But we're not changing the shape of what leadership should look like. So we're not saying to men, come over to our way of being, we're trying to be ourselves, sitting in that mold. But even that, within the conversations we've had previously about there is amazing women leaders, they do the job well. Culturally, as a society, I don't know if that's gone far enough. So yeah, you know, we're in this political situation where we potentially may or may not have a female president. We do have women leaders, but I wouldn't necessarily when we talk about in the conversation that we would be the first people that come to as likable. And actually, when we're looking at that YouTube show, it actually talks about that study that she did. And it was both men and women that did the same study. And all she did was change the name, and both had the same result about the competencies. It goes back to competencies, but the result was different about likability, wasn't it? Yeah, so this was a case study about a character, one of whom was called Heidi, and one of whom was called Howard. And I think they were investors of some description. And the professor's students were basically asked which of the two people they preferred. And they were the same on both of them, weren't they? When they said, which one would you prefer to work with? They said they would prefer to work with Howard, judging Heidi to be more difficult to work with. I think they said Heidi was perceived as aggressive and out for herself. Yeah. So this whole case study was about this Heidi Rosen, who was a successful female venture capitalist. And so actually, what was interesting is that they thought that even though they're both competent, they wouldn't want to work with her because of those traits, which then goes back to the dilemma is you can't be strong, competent, and also have the qualities that we all want in a leadership, because you either got to have the helpful and kind and supportive roles. But if you do the other elements, it's one or the other. And that's the dilemma, isn't it? We're in a society where we think sometimes we have passed that we are accepting and challenging these norms. But in reality, in the leadership role, if we're honest, what is our unconscious mind when we think about the women leaders or senior leaderships that are assertive, are direct, are that those elements, does that make you uncomfortable? Because they don't sit in their society norms, versus the leadership roles. And that's where the gender bias sort of lifts. But it's interesting, because thinking about society norms, I was brought up to be kind, nurturing, helpful, supportive, and deferential. I don't know that I could unlearn those qualities. I mean, I hope that is who I am. And I hope that's my authentic self. But I can't unlearn that. And in leadership roles, I've been told that I'm too kind, I should be firmer. If I get frustrated, I cry, and therefore you're emotional. And then when I try and put on assertiveness, I get told that I'm too aggressive. I realized rewatching this, that what I was trying to be as well was masculine. And I just sort of think that's really interesting. Even though I've put on this assertiveness armor, would I, contradiction, but would I feel naked because I'm not being what I consider to be my authentic self? But also, just on that last point, is that because from childhood, I've been conditioned to be kind, nurturing, helpful, supportive, and deferential? But also, does it matter? Does it matter? So in a society where we talk about retention, trying to keep that on, people don't leave because of the work, they leave because of how they're felt and being treated. And that often comes down to their management and their leadership, how they're being supported, how they're felt. And so actually, those traits we don't want to be harboring out, because actually being cared for, being nurtured, being developed is what we should have our leadership aspired. And it did make me think of something, maybe there's something to be learned by the therapy world here, because we're naturally taught and trained to be so attuned with our clients, so attuned with their needs, and to really see what's really going on. And when you're in a leadership role, it's almost the complete opposite. You're coming from a strategic, operational, outcome-driven perspective, that you're losing the individual, and there's almost two different worlds. And actually, if I think about my leadership journey, the hardest thing I had to do was own, not only that I am neurodiverse, and that's what creates me to be who I am, and I see the world slightly different. But also, I don't need to listen to the voices that tell me when I've been doing a role, things that contradict who I am. So actually, I've had to train my own self, which is sad, isn't it? To train my own self to own all the qualities that I am, plus more, because I think you can learn. I do believe you can learn those qualities of the leadership models, of being able to train somebody up, all of that. But you can't really train someone to be kind and nurturing, which is actually, if you think about it, if we really did some research around what people need, it's always around how they felt. So actually, we've got, it's almost, we should be flipping this upside down, and learning from the women going, we should be celebrating our uniqueness in our nature, not trying to conform, and then that's where the conflict is, which goes back to reshaping that cookie cutter, a really rigidly defined male persona to something that's far more organic. And the interesting thing is that three and a half, four million books on leadership, so it's a very complex subject. There are odd expectations of what leadership is, but it's not person centric, I don't think. And I think that's where the dilemma comes, and why there are so many books on it, because the cookie cutter shape is related to process and outcomes and sales targets and being driven and getting results. Whereas the traits that women have is people centric. And if you nurture the people in the right way, you get good outcomes, because people feel valued, engaged, appreciated. Yeah, it's really conscious. But actually, it can go both ways. You know, boys or men who are nurturing and kind and being nurtured by strong women in their life, that can also go against them, because actually, they seem to be too soft and too kind. So I do think if there is a dilemma for women in senior leadership of being seen, if they're in a male dominated world, but also it can go the other way, if especially in our society where we can have a single parent, and they're nurtured a particular way. And actually, that's the trait we want to see more, because actually, we recognise that we want them to be kind and looking after it, as well as being able to stand up for themselves. So I think the other element, this is why I think leadership is so complex, because you're not just working with the roles, you're working with the complexities of human nature, and what really makes somebody develop and work well for you. And there isn't anything around the leadership, around the self-awareness, the psychology of a human person, because every individual is created and uniquely see the world differently because of what their upbringing has been or been taught and perceived. So when we're thinking about it, it is about challenging our own complexities, when we come to the table of what is it? What is bugging you about this particular person? Is it the tone? Is it their language? Am I unconscious because of all the things that I'm being brought up and what I think a perfect leader is, which there isn't? And what does that impact in terms of the leadership that I want to be? What do we want to be inspiring to in looking at leaders? I do think you can have it all in terms of you shouldn't have to choose one or the other. And that's the danger that then we become either too feminine, because we're trying to go so much away from the masculine that we're trying to get feminine. And what's the danger in that? I don't have an answer for that. But I do think it's being conscious, like I didn't challenge in that moment, because I was so taken back by the directness of the comment. But actually, it is about being confident in myself to challenge, but challenge not as aggressively, of course, challenging in a way that makes somebody think about twice saying that comment again. And I think she made a good point in the video around being curious. And that opens conversation rather than closing. If you're curious, for example, about why that man made that comment to you, that can actually then reframe the guy's thinking. I remember I was really paid off by an interaction that I had with somebody that I used to work with, I was responsible for recruitment, the guy had come in as an accountant through one of the most famous accountancy recruitment organizations, I had got arrangements with agencies on a preferred supplier list to PSL. And the new finance manager needed staff went to the company that he came through behind my back and undermining my PSL. And although he was more senior to me, I gave him feedback about how that made me feel. Long story short, it did not end well. In hindsight, had I been curious about, can I just understand? Can I just get your thoughts on where you were coming from with that? Essentially, I was being assertive, I came across as being aggressive, because I was standing my ground and I was standing up for myself versus intentions again. Absolutely. And I think if I had been curious, I don't think it would have changed the outcome, but it would have changed the perception and the way that the messaging was received. And I think I would then have had a good relationship with that manager, because I had stood up for myself and challenged a man. And that was where the resentment was from your thinking and from taking that, I think she made some really good points and brought a lot of her stories in there. And I'd absolutely encourage everyone to watch it. It's a very interesting one. I think for me, it's around the language again. Being curious, I think is really important, because that's easier than the word challenge. Language is so important. I think when we are talking about the likability factor, does it matter to be liked if they're competent and they are able to do their job? It does matter. In reality, is my conclusion, because actually, especially if you are leading staff, because staff look to you to have a, what's the word, a connection with, but it doesn't mean that's all of it. Likeability is not about being nice, I think. Likeability is being able to have your self-awareness of what your staff needs are and have an appropriate communication and language to make them feel that they've got a voice. That does not mean, likeable, I want to give you everything you need. I'm going to be really nice, because that isn't authentic. Because in reality, the job of a leader is bloody hard. I would say my takeaway from this would be don't go looking for a leadership style. Don't compare yourself with other people, and particularly with men or with strong women. Be authentic to who you are as a person, and then find ways to navigate or reframe the situation. An example that I can share is that I have had ideas and concepts emulated by other people, and invariably, my senior managers. And there is nothing worse than seeing your idea land better because it's been presented by a man, and then having the man take credit for your idea, and pretending it wasn't yours all along. I reframed that, and my strategy was to tell loads of people what I was working on, to get the word out there that this was my project, my idea, and I was working on it for my male manager. And I just socialized that so much, so that it became inevitable that I was associated with it. So the worst that could happen was the male manager introduced me and my concept, but it was my concept and I was associated with it. And I think also the point that you make about reframing, so instead of taking on that assertiveness and standing my ground, to more consciously think, I will get what I need to get by being curious. So it's about me adapting who I am to the situation, rather than trying to be somebody who I'm not, because that's what the sort of society or context demands. What do you think? So many people are going to It is so sad, without getting too deep about it, that in 2024, we're having same discussions that probably people have been having for so many centuries, that we seem to be shifting so far, and yet in the day to day people's experiences, even though we may sing it from the same hymn sheets, or we have strategies, or we talk about what people think they should hear, in our own experiences, the whole point of assessing these conversations is that it's the realities of our experiences, and there hasn't actually shifted that much. But I think it's also sharing with women these experiences, so they don't go through the same anxiety, almost that they can jumpstart to where we are now. But it's important, I think, for people to realise, even though we're just talking about it, the reason why I find it interesting is, you know, although we don't talk about our age on podcasts, we do come from different generations, and yet we still have this same experience, a hundred percent, slightly more different, but we still are having these experiences. And I do think one of the points where we probably kind of think about what's the next step, what should we do? And when we think about the language I'm speaking up, or being curious about that, speaking up also can mean that's also another trigger for people, what does that even think about? So I think it's having baby steps to go, recognising the subtleties of what modern sexism is, and it doesn't always have to come from males. These subtleties come from our own genders often. Oh, a hundred percent. And recognising that unconsciously we have biases that shape and do dictate our thinking, and actually taking a step back and challenging ourselves is important in terms of, oh, I wonder what, why am I thinking that? Is it her voice? Is it the tone? Is it the language? How do we move this forward and being able to have a conversation about this? And how do we encourage people to be both competent and likeable, and be able to be the leaders that we want to see more of in the future? So I don't think it's a quick answer, but I do think it's about us being more aware and questioning ourselves kindly about why are we thinking that? Why are they bugging me so much? I think we can move the discussion forward. I don't think reframing has to be sort of not being who we are, but a really good reframe was you're not pushing to the front of it, you're advocating for yourself. Having kept that in my mind when I'm standing up for myself has stopped me from moving between assertive to aggressive and thinking if I'm advocating for myself, I can just be myself. When I was standing up for myself, I didn't become myself, I became somebody else. You made the point that we're still having the same sexism that we had for generations. So we're not going to change that sexism overnight, whether that's male on female sexism or female on female sexism. But I think we can move the needle and certainly have less stress, less imposter syndrome, less self doubt if we allow ourselves to be our authentic selves. And if we reframe things in a way that works for me, my reframing is definitely advocating for myself. I don't need to be assertive, because I'm already that. And my sort of third takeaway, I think would be to question myself as to whether or not I am being sexist towards other women, because I think I have been. I think that's the thing is, we're not trying to berate ourselves because so many of these things are so subtle, even with ourselves, we don't recognise it. We can't be biased against ourselves by saying we've never done this before. Do you know what I mean? Like there's always something behind a behaviour or a thought, we just don't knowingly know it. So I think being conscious bias is absolutely the centre of the conversation, I think, because that just is massive. But as you were speaking, I think something that just kind of came to me is around praising and the behaviours. So actually being specific when you are praising somebody's other behaviour, and saying, I really liked the way that you, yeah, I noticed that when you dealt with this situation, it really spoke to me because of, and being specific about, it's a bit like, you know, when you're parenting, you're always told praise the behaviour you want to see more of. We want to be able to be encouragers and women of leaders that are inspired because of other women inspiring them of what they notice in our behaviours, and using the right language that we want them to be replicating, such as the way that you did that presentation, you're so clear and precise, I was able to really demonstrate so many amazing in it, and then you kind of follow up in such a way of, because I think when we're thinking about leaders and shaping into another mould, I think we do need to be more deliberate in being able to praise, encourage and enable people to feel like they can be both likeable in their approach, but also very competent and assertive and direct in what they're thinking. So that was kind of my thinking, my conclusion from the likeability dilemma is actually, it doesn't necessarily need to be a dilemma, because we don't have to worry about life being likeable, if that's who we are, what we have to, but society wants us to be competent. Yeah. And likeable has an issue, is something that does impact, but if we start to educate society that we can be both competent and likeable, and instead of trying to form into that mould, that leadership mould, by being authentic to ourselves, we actually reshape the mould. Yeah, absolutely, and not having to think, overthink it, I think is fine. I think we don't need to be a certain way, I think if we are holding ourselves and we're true to ourselves, and we know our abilities, that should overflow, and actually less of the listening of the noise, and more about being able to hold our own, is so important. But yeah, I've really enjoyed this discussion, I think there's so much to be said, but I think I'd really encourage our listeners to comment and share what your views are in the reviews of that clip, because I think it says so much about us, doesn't it? And also the research that she talks about from Professor Flynn, I think would be really interesting to see what other people thought of that comment as well, and actually it was both so sexy, but had the same kind of viewpoint, which I find fascinating. But yeah, I think it was great, so brilliant, really enjoyed it. Great stuff.