Differing Gender Tactics as Applied to Professional
Situations:
A Study of Gendered Tactics in Public Relations
Nikeitha Goodridge
06/01/2010
Differing Gender Perceptions as Related to Professional Status:
A Study of Gendered Tactics in Public Relation.
The words “power” “perception” and “influence” have become synonymous with
the term public relations. These terms are associated with and are often used when
referring to successful public relations practitioners. However, there is another dividing
factor within the ranks of public relations that directly correlates with the measurement of
status and success. Though not always a fair one, this deciding factor is gender.
Much of today’s society has the belief that success and status in the corporate and
professional world is dependent upon certain character traits that may be attributed one
gender and not the other. This idea is often made without foundation. The purpose of this
study is not only to identify the possible different ways that male and female practitioners
choose and use certain tactics in certain professional situations, but to relate those tactics
to the importance of status and success to practitioners. These tactics will include the
usage of ethics, persuasion, and power influence.
Review Of Literature
Several researchers have attempted to identify the probability of a communication
dissonance between men and women (Case, 1994; Tannen, 1994, Sheridan 2007). This
literature suggests that while men and women’s means of communication are
linguistically correct, the ritual nature of the communication makes it seem as though
each gender was speaking separate languages.
This language separation is brought about by the usage of similar words to relay
distinct experiences of self and social relationships (Boden & Zimmerman, 1991). In lay
terms, women will use communication in such a way that will establish personal
connections and men will use them to gain respect and status. (Tannen, 1994)
Fiona Sheridan investigated and identified nine distinct areas of communication
where men and women differed. These areas were talk time; taking turns, interruptions,
and overlaps; conversational support; mitigated/aggravated forms; conversational topics;
giving orders-directness/indirectness; asking questions; humor; complaining; and praise.
After identifying these areas, an apparent difference could be seen in the way each gender
handled communication within the area. Using the 9 areas as framework, a case study
was conducted involving the observation of conversation and communication between
men and women.
The study found that men and women took on very different, but expected, roles
when it came to conversation. The men dominated in the areas of talk time, interruptions
and overlaps, giving orders, and humor. However, they proved to be weaker in softer
areas of communication. Women, on the other hand, took control in the softer areas of
communication such as taking turns, conversational support, conversational topics,
praise, and asking questions.
The data that emerged showed a clear divide between male and female
dominance …the findings set a pattern for all other conversational
contributions from the sexes (Sheridan 2007).
This article brought further truth to the theory that men and women do, in fact,
have different means of communication. It also suggested that the dissonance between
the communication styles of men and women could be problematic in situations where
certain communication skills were required of one gender that the particular gender is not
known to have.
The effect of gender is also in question by O’Neil’s (2004) as she evaluates the
possibility that men and women differ in upward influence tactics solely based on their
gender.
Upward influence is defined as communication that is used intentionally
by lower-power participants to change the behavior of higher-power
participants in organizations (O’Neil 127).
O’Neil took no firm stake in the idea that the influence that a lower-power individual has
on a higher-power individual is dependent on the lower-power individuals’ gender.
However she did turn to studies that identified 6 classifications of upward influence
tactics. These tactics were identified as rationality, coalition, ingratiation, exchange of
benefits, assertiveness, and upward appeal.
O’Neil’s goal was to definitively prove whether or not gender has an effect on
upward influence outcomes. 1,504 senior-level public relations individuals were
randomly chosen to be apart of O’Neil’s study. Survey questionnaires, containing
questions on relations with lower-power coworkers, interactions, and value perception,
were mailed to each individual. Out of the 1,504 individuals, 309 responded. Of these
309, 54% were identified as male and 46% were identified as female.
The results of the surveys found that there was no difference in the tactic usage
between men and women, showing that gender did not effect or predict upward influence
tactics.
These lack of gender differences suggest that potential differences in
upward influence tactic activity between men and women are due to
intervening, situation-bound variables and not the result of more stable
gender differences (O’Neil, 2004).
Previous to this, similar studies had also found no strong basis to claim that gender made
a difference in the tactic usage. Lamude, Baxter, and Grob all found that their research
produced conflicting results on the usage of upward influence. They suggested that it is
possible that upward influences are shaped more by both formal and informal measures
of power rather than by gender. These measures included organizational role, place
within the organizational hierarchy (Grob, 1997), number of employees supervised,
gender ratio of work groups, participation in influential networks (Lamude, 1993),
relationships with influential members, and favorable perceptions of others (Baxter,
1984).
Overall, many of the studies related to this topic focus on the perception of
different genders in the public relations world. Does being a woman Public Relations
practitioner make you weaker than a male practitioner would be? Do the definitions of
important words in PR like power, perception, and influence hold different meanings and
importance between genders? In her study, Aldoory (2008) uses previous studies that
analyze public relations and public relations roles from 3 different standpoints- Powerover, power-with, and power-to (Berger, 2005). These systems identify practitioners
based on their modes of operation.
Power-over refers to subordinate practitioners who do what they are told to do by
those in charge. Power-with practitioners act as advocates for their organization by
constructing mutually beneficial relationships between a company or organization and its
publics. Power-to practitioners engage in power relations by using political intelligence,
willpower, resources and structural arrangements that otherwise constrain their abilities
to help organizations make ethical choices. (Aldoory, 2008)
Previous scholars studying this topic had originally believed that there was a bias
against women in public relations.
Women were seen as caring nurturers well suited for working with clients,
who need sympathy, but not tough enough for corporate life (Cline et al.,
1986).
These scholars believed that in order to survive in the corporate world, a woman had to
be a power-to practitioner instead of the power-over practitioners that they were
perceived to be. Thus, they did not deem this a possibility because it was thought that a
woman naturally had feminine qualities and men had masculine qualities that were
biologically fixed and could not be changed. Feminist scholars like Lauretis (1990)
changed this view by suggesting that masculinity and femininity were not biologically
fixed, but culturally presupposed and hegemonically ranked through power relations.
I think that the feminine represents the contrary in its absolute sense. How
does it come to pass that a woman, who is defined on the one hand in
relation to man, although lesser than man or an ‘imperfect man’, is
simultaneously made to represent otherness about its absolute sense? (de
Lauretis, 1990)
It is with the knowledge of these conceptualizations of power and gender within public
relations that Aldoory undertook her case study. Aldoory’s study closely observed and
analyzed male and female practitioners’ definition of influence and power within Public
Relations, genders perception of power, influence tactics, examined success factors, and
power sources.
Using a questionnaire that included open ended questions like “What do you think
it means to ‘do the right thing’?” qualitative data was collected from 707 Public Relations
professional; 475 female and 250 male. The results of the analysis showed that as far as
usage of power; clear, differentiating practices could not easily be divided between men
and women. However, the results on the mediated ways that men and women perceive
power, showed that women, who had historically been known and expected only to desire
private spaces of attributed power, are now more prone to desire more access to public
domains of power.
As I stated at the beginning of the review, this study will attempt to identify the
possible different ways that male and female practitioners choose and use certain tactics
in certain professional situation and it will relate those tactics to the importance of status
and success to practitioners. All of these studies suggest that there is a slight difference
between genders in certain areas of public relations and not at all in others. However,
slight differences in one area may prove to make a huge difference in other areas. For this
reason I will use this information to dig deeper into the perceptions of PR practitioners of
each gender and to identify the dissonance between them.
Theory
This study is based on Debora Tannen’s Genderlect Theory. This theory states
that male and female communication is cross cultural with inherent masculine and
feminine styles of discourse that are best viewed as two distinct dialects rather than
inferior and superior ways of communicating (Griffin 2008). The Genderlect theory
attributes this to general male and female nature, saying that it is in female nature to try to
make personal, symmetrical connections with the people around them and it is the male
nature to exert dominance to gain asymmetrical status and the respect the feel they need
from their peers (Tannen 1994). The theory outlines five specific communication
methods that men and women use to communication. It goes on to describe exactly how
each communication method differs between each gender and what it means. Using
Tannen’s theory will help add credibility to this study as well as an insight from an expert
on gender studies
While the theory has a broad focus, this study narrows the focus specifically to
communication differences in a specific work environment and under certain specific
situations, looking to answer two specific questions. The first question it seeks to answer
stems from the idea that men and women communicate differently because of their
supposed inherent natures as Tannen suggests. It asks the question, is there a difference in
the tactics that female Public Relations practitioners use in comparison to the tactics that
male Public Relations practitioners use and vice versa and what is it?
Assuming that there is a difference in the tactics that male and females use, the
second question attempts to look at where and how those different tactics are used.
Although each gender may come upon the same situation, is there a different way that
they use their tactics? The second question asks just this. Is there a difference in the way
male and female practitioners use their tactics to handle certain situations?
Following along with the Genderlect theory, there are two hypotheses that can
explain what result I will expect to see in this study. The first hypothesis is that women
will use more ethical tactics in their Public Relations careers, eluding to the more
womanly nature that Tannen claims is inherent in women, and men will use less ethics,
doing whatever is take top ensure their success. The second is that women will react more
emotionally to certain situations than men will, taking more interest in how ethically the
situation is handled.