Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
Vol. 12, No. 1, 2011, pp. 79–86
Tall Poppies in the Workplace:
Communication Strategies Used by
Envious Others in Response to
Successful Women
Anne C. Mancl & Barbara Penington
The current study used the Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) as a framework for exploring how
women in organizational settings interact with other women they perceive as superior to
them in some way. The ‘‘tall poppy,’’ an Australian cultural expression, refers to individuals who represent high ability or admirable qualities. According to Tall Poppy Syndrome, people who interact with tall poppies often demonstrate the tendency to attack,
demean, or in some other way, bring the ‘‘tall poppy’’ down to the common level. To better
understand the tall poppy phenomenon among women in organizations, focus group data
from 40 adult, Caucasian women in the Midwest were collected and analyzed using
grounded research methodology (Glaser & Straus, 1967). The study presents findings
related to negative communication strategies females use in response to the tall poppy.
Keywords: Envy; Focus Groups; Organizational Communication; Tall Poppy Syndrome;
Women
Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS), an Australian cultural expression, describes a ‘‘disease’’
that feeds on the belief that anyone who appears to represent success, high ability, or
admirable qualities must be attacked, demeaned, and cut down to the common level
(Feather, 1989; Feather & McKee, 1993; Peeters, 2003, 2004). For the purposes of this
study, the first author coined the term ‘‘poppy clipper’’ to refer to the person
who feels the need to ‘‘cut down’’ the successful individual. High achievers within
Anne C. Mancl (MSc, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, 2006) is a lecturer in the Department of Communication, University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, 800 W. Main St., Whitewater, WI 53190. E-mail: mancla@uww.edu.
Barbara Penington (PhD, Marquette University, 2001) is a Professor in the Department of Communication,
University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, 800 W. Main St., Whitewater, WI 53190. E-mail: peningtb@uww.edu
ISSN 1745-9435 (print)/ISSN 1745-9443 (online) # 2011 Eastern Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/17459435.2011.601701
80
A. C. Mancl & B. Penington
organizations who are ‘‘cut down to size’’ may choose to downplay their talents to
stave off negative behaviors stemming from envious others. Reis (1998), for example,
stated that many successful, talented women ‘‘play small’’ to avoid social exclusion. If
this is indeed the case, women may be restricted from reaching their full potentials,
and the workplace is being shortchanged as it is held to a level of mediocrity. The
purpose of this study was to investigate communicative strategies employed by
women in response to perceived tall poppies. Although scholars (Feather, 1989;
Feather & McKee, 1993; Peeters, 2003, 2004) have not suggested that TPS is applicable to women only, this study focused specifically on women in the workplace to
better understand a unique challenge they may be uncomfortable discussing.
Envy and Female Competition
Envy is directly related to TPS, as the term implies a perceived rival who threatens to
take away something that is self-esteem relevant, whether that is an advantage, social
attention, or material possession (Salovey, 1991). Within the workplace, envious
individuals may use ‘‘predatory tactics’’ to ‘‘professionally ambush’’ higher-achieving
colleagues (Bedeian, 1995, p. 6). In addition, Bedeian blamed some reports of corporate mediocrity and in-fighting on envious workers. Unfortunately, research
regarding this phenomenon is limited because, as Vecchio (2001) claimed, it has been
part of managerial tradition to ignore emotions such as envy. This stems from the
presumption that business relationships and interactions should be based on rational,
economically driven decision making. Envy in the workplace should not be ignored,
however. It has been found to ignite other negative emotions, such as schadenfreude
(satisfaction or joy derived from the misfortunes of others), contempt, and anger
(Hareli & Weiner, 2002). Zizzo and Oswald (2001) surmised that we not only envy
winners, we frequently punish them—even at our own expense. Zizzo and Oswald
tested participants to see how willing they were to burn away others’ wealth, even
when they had to give up some of their own to do so. Participants played an anonymous ‘‘betting’’ game; any winnings were theirs to keep. As the participants played,
they were able to see just how much the other players were winning. Players could
secretly burn away other people’s winnings, but only if they burned 25% of their
own money, too. Nearly two-thirds chose to burn others’ winnings, despite the high
cost of losing their own money.
Gender literature on competition also facilitates understanding of the symptoms
and outcomes of TPS. When a woman is perceived as being on the fast track to success, other women may feel as though she is ‘‘breaking rank,’’ or deviating from the
‘‘norm.’’ The high-achieving woman is often perceived as ‘‘raising the bar’’ and
increasing expectations for other female coworkers. An Oxygen Media study reported
in U.S. News & World Report found that 65% of women believe that other women
resent or are jealous of powerful women (Kelly, 2002). Oakes-Ash’s (2003) research
on female competition found that high-achieving, intelligent women are still too
reticent to discuss envy and competitiveness among other women for fear of being
perceived as aggressive, self-centered, and overly ambitious.
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
81
The presence of TPS and its related, negative communicative behaviors can be
detrimental to individuals, as well as organizations. All previous TPS research has been
done in Australia using an exclusively quantitative methodology with mixed gender
samples. Given the lack of systematic research that provides detailed accounts of
American women’s experiences with TPS, the following research question was posed:
RQ1: What communication behaviors do envious others use in response to the tall
poppy?
For the purposes of this research, ‘‘envious others’’ are also termed ‘‘poppy clippers’’
in that their negative communication serves to ‘‘cut down’’ perceived tall poppies.
Method
A qualitative design was chosen to obtain rich, descriptive data from both the tall
poppy’s and the poppy clipper’s perspectives. Although TPS is not exclusively experienced by women in workplace settings, the scope of the study was limited so as to
facilitate a deeper understanding of TPS in this specific context.
Description of Sample and Procedure
Snowball sampling was used to obtain 32 participants for four focus groups consisting of
six to 11 women each. The mean age of participants was 37 years. Twenty-seven participants were married, four were single, and one was divorced. All but three had a college
degree or higher. Twenty-six of the participants worked outside of the home in a professional capacity. The remainder of the participants had worked sometime previously.
Instrument
Focus groups were used as a method for women to share experiences of being both
the tall poppy and the poppy clipper. Focus group questions were loosely structured
so as to give participants the freedom to respond with their own words and styles.
Having pre-established, core questions provided a base for consistent data collection
among groups. All focus groups were conducted over a 90-min period, with the
exception of one focus group, which voluntarily ran for an additional 90 min. The
audiotapes for each focus group were transcribed.
At the beginning of focus group sessions, women tended to speak from the tall
poppy perspective. As the sessions progressed, however, and the facilitator shared a
personal story of how she had acted as a poppy clipper, participants began to feel
more comfortable relating their own stories of when and how they had ‘‘clipped’’
a perceived tall poppy.
Analysis of Data
Constant comparative analysis was used (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This method
involved coding the data and categorizing data into themes. The coded data were
82
A. C. Mancl & B. Penington
shared with Barbara Penington, and themes that were difficult to categorize were
mutually discussed, and decisions regarding categorization were made. Validity was
ascertained by relaying to 10 participants the accounts they had shared—a process
known as ‘‘member checking’’ (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). These participants were
asked to verify that the meaning of their responses had been captured. Participants
were also given the opportunity to clarify or elaborate on their previous responses.
Results and Interpretations
Participants’ responses pertaining to poppy-clipping behaviors could be divided into
two general categories—nonverbal and verbal. The researchers recognize that these
message forms often appear in conjunction; however, for purposes of identification
and explication, they have been separated here.
Nonverbal Messages
According to Wood (2003), nonverbal communication is the way the subconscious
mind communicates. Despite attempts to control it, nonverbal behavior gives clues
to a person’s true feelings and, according to participants, was the category of behavior
most often associated with poppy clipping. Lola characterized her perception of the
poppy clipper’s negative nonverbal behaviors as follows:
Some of their mean behaviors are so subtle that it can take you a while to realize
what is happening to you. It’s hard to describe the clipper behavior; it’s like a
bunch of stuff at once: the ‘‘not paying attention, not listening, not respecting
you, but looking and judging-in-a-split-second’’ type thing.
Focus group participants provided many examples of nonverbal passive–aggressive
behaviors experienced in the workplace. These included (a) stonewalling, procrastinating, and sandbagging; (b) pouting and sighing, hoping that someone would
notice, only to reply ‘‘nothing,’’ when someone asked what was wrong; (c) feigned
helplessness, or ‘‘playing dumb’’; (d) masking noncompliance with politeness and
smiles; (e) obstructing progress or success by not doing their fair share of the work;
(f) pretending not to pay attention or feigning interest when the target is engaging
other listeners; (g) taking an ‘‘unnecessary’’ cell phone call during a personal conversation; and (h) ‘‘losing’’ important information the target needs.
Sadie shared why a clipper might use negative passive–aggressive behaviors rather
than direct, assertive communication strategies:
We [women] choose to be passive–aggressive just to appear to be nice; just to be
nice—because nobody wants to look like a bitch. You have to put on a show.
Research supports this suggestion. Studies have found that women are typically characterized as passive and dependent (Sherman, 1976) and inclusive and collaborative
(Rosener, 1990).
Eye behavior was also identified as a negative nonverbal behavior. Negative eye
behaviors included the ‘‘once over’’ or ‘‘sideways glance,’’ ‘‘the evil eye,’’ ‘‘the glare,’’
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
83
and the ‘‘critiquing judgmental squint’’ (as Lola clarified; it is as if to say, ‘‘Whatever
you are talking about isn’t valid, intelligent or important’’). The general lack of eye
contact was linked with showing disrespect; and the mean, nasty ‘‘stare down’’ was
mentioned as a way of being threatening or intimidating.
Christie felt particularity clipped by the eye roll:
I used to be a teacher at Meadow High School where I really saw it [the eye roll from
other teachers]. I have run into women who have given me the eye roll—who see
me walk into a room and turn their back. Who made it very nonverbally clear they
don’t want to talk to me, and I just know what they’re thinking, ‘‘Here’s that loud,
obnoxious, brassy lady coming in. Look out.’’
Length of stare also related to negative eye behavior. Claudia felt that the slightly
longer than average ‘‘look’’ was one method a clipper might use to obtain information to compare herself with the tall poppy. Oakes-Ash (2003) referred to this
eye behavior as the ‘‘Compare and Despair Stare’’ (p. 27).
Chronemics, or one’s use of time, was also linked with nonverbal clipping behaviors. Molly described an apparently envious female coworker who used time as a
way to exert power over the team and to indirectly clip Molly:
She thrived on being late for every meeting; she knew it pissed me off because it
meant I had to start the meeting late because of her; but she liked how it threw
me off in front of my colleagues.
Arriving significantly late—with no forewarning—is clearly a way that participants
felt that clippers showed disrespect. As Suzie explained, ‘‘ . . . showing up way late
is like a clipper saying to me, ‘you are NOT as important as you think’, or, ‘you aren’t
worth my time’.’’
Verbal Messages
In addition to negative nonverbals, poppy clippers’ verbal messages were strategically
employed to ‘‘cut down’’ the tall poppy. Gossip and backbiting represented two
frequently cited and often overlapping verbal behaviors for participants. Christie,
for example, admitted to actually having participated in gossip and backbiting in
response to other women discussing positive aspects of a tall poppy:
I mean, they’re pumping this person [the tall poppy] up and I just like WHACK! I
just want them to know that this person ain’t ‘‘all that.’’ I should just keep my
mouth shut because it’s got nothing to do with anything. It’s just that when some
women build up another woman to seem like she IS IT, then I feel I have to say,
‘‘well, yeah, except they . . . ’’ and I unload dirt about that woman . . . and I don’t do
it to the general public, just about women I know. But it’s gossiping . . . that’s what
it is. Down and dirty. It’s gossiping and then I have to look at myself and say, What
ticked you off? I say to myself, ‘‘Why is it that you couldn’t keep your mouth
shut?’’—instead you had to clip.
Christie’s candid account suggests that poppy clippers are aware of their behavior. It
is interesting to note, however, that during the same focus group, Christie was also
84
A. C. Mancl & B. Penington
able to describe gossip from a different perspective. The following situation occurred
at her husband’s workplace; he felt he had lost a talented employee because of the way
she was treated:
He [my husband] had one of his female employees say to him that she thought he
was having an affair with this other woman because he gave her too much attention.
He was like, ‘‘What?!’’ She [the other woman] did her job well. She didn’t get
caught up in all the gossip like the other women that worked there, but what
did they do? Clip, clip, clip; they clipped her in the worst way . . . they accused
her of having an affair with the boss behind her back. It was ugly.
This type of situation may occur quite frequently in organizations. A 1997 study by
Briles (1999), for example, found that 71% of women (who were predominantly in
the health care field) reported being sabotaged by another woman, and the GenderTraps (Briles, 1996) study rated sabotage between women as the third largest problem
facing women in the workplace.
Conclusion
This study, drawing on the accounts provided by adult female focus group participants, enhances our understanding of the behaviors of envious women in the workplace. Women continue to comprise a growing percentage in the workforce; and if
they and their organizations are to thrive, poppy-clipping behaviors must be better
understood and, in turn, minimized.
Clippers’ communicative behaviors were considered by the participants to be
subtle and indirect, and reflected in the envious other’s nonverbal and verbal
messages. The participants’ experiences support the work of Wert and Salovy
(2004). According to these researchers, competitiveness and envy are often manifested in indirect ways, such as through gossip, passive–aggressiveness, and backstabbing. Over time, these negative behaviors can be truly debilitating not only for the
women targeted and their co-workers, but for the organization as a whole.
It is important to note that, although envy and competitiveness make up the
largest component of TPS, snap judgments and misperceptions may be at the core
of how TPS is initially enacted. Many of the women in the study who admitted to
being a clipper appeared to use ‘‘early closure’’ (Goffman, 1959), which, in this study,
refers to erroneous impressions of other women built on faulty perceptions. Because
of these perceptions, communication lines are prematurely closed, and positive relationships never form. Goffman suggested that when people are unsure of themselves,
lack confidence, or lack relevant information about others, the perception of others is
typically biased or distorted.
Limitations of the Study
A limitation of the study was that data were gathered through personal testimonies
in the presence of other women who live in the same community. This may have
contributed to their desire to manage their impressions and present themselves in
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication
85
a positive way, at the expense of revealing the ‘‘truth.’’ It may also account for why
data provided by participants from the tall poppy perspective was more prevalent
than that provided from the poppy-clipper perspective. On the other hand, familiarity with others in the group may have provided a supportive climate where participants felt comfortable expressing their feelings on what is often a ‘‘taboo’’ topic.
Further research might use one-on-one interviews to ascertain if the results from this
study are indeed supported. The homogeneity of the sample was also a limitation.
Future research should consider the perspectives and experiences of women from different ethnic groups, social classes, ages, and occupations or careers. An investigation
into family communication patterns as a possible contributor to poppy-clipping
behavior would no doubt yield interesting findings. Finally, because this study
focused on female patterns and behaviors in the workplace, male participants might
also be queried to garner their perceptions of the male ‘‘tall poppy’’ and the clipping
behaviors employed by envious others who are men or women. It would be interesting to investigate if TPS is more or less prominent in same-sex, rather than cross-sex,
situations.
Final Thoughts
Based on the feedback of participants, tall poppies and poppy clippers are certainly a
part of many organizations. This research suggests a need to educate both women
and men on the communication challenges and psychological ramifications inherent
in the behavior of envious others in the workplace. Awareness of the communicative
aspects of TPS and its negative effects can be an important first step in developing
more positive, productive work environments.
References
Bedein, A. (1995). Workplace envy. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 6.
Briles, J. (1996). GenderTraps: Conquering confrontophobia, toxic bosses, and other land mines at
work. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Briles, J. (1999). Women to woman: Becoming sabotage savvy in the new millennium. Far Hills, NJ:
New Horizon Press.
Feather, N. T. (1989). Attitudes toward the high achiever: The fall of the tall poppy. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 41, 239–267.
Feather, N. T. & McKee, I. R. (1993). Global self-esteem and attitudes toward the high achiever for
Australian and Japanese students. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 65–76.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hareli, S. & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a new
direction in the study of achieve motivation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 183–193.
Kelly, K. (2002). Pretty poison. U.S. News & World Report, 132(17), 48–50.
Oakes-Ash, R. (2003). Anything she can do I can do better. North Sydney NSW, Australia: Random
House.
Peeters, B. (2003). The Tall Poppy Syndrome. On the re-emergence in contemporary Australia of
ancient Greek and Latin motive. Classicvm, 29(2), 22–26.
86
A. C. Mancl & B. Penington
Peeters, B. (2004). ‘‘Thou shalt not be a tall poppy’’: Describing an Australian communicative (and
behavioral) norm. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1, 71–92.
Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Choices and compromises of talented women. Mansfield Center,
CT: Creative Learning Press.
Rosener, J. B. (1990, November=December). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6),
119–125.
Salovey, P. (1991). The psychology of jealousy & envy. New York, NY: Guilford.
Salovey, P. & Rodin, J. (1986). The differentiation of social-comparison jealousy and romantic
jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1100–1112.
Sherman, J. (1976). Social values, femininity and the development of female competence. Journal of
Social Issues, 32, 181–195.
Vecchio, R. P. (2001). Negative emotion in the workplace. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 161–179.
Wert, S. & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General Psychology,
8, 1089–2680.
Wood, P. (2003). Body honesty in customer service: Understanding deception and credibility dues.
Retrieved from http://www.expertmagazine.com/artman/publish/article_294.shtml
Zizzo, D. & Oswald, A. (2001). Are people willing to pay to reduce others’ incomes? Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press, Department of Economics.
Copyright of Qualitative Research Reports in Communication is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.