Women Who Work ... and Self-Sabotage

[BossyBitch]

Sorry for the Trump-inspired title - couldn't resist, given that it's actually pertinent to the subject.

I'm hoping for some useful insights here. I'm a woman in tech and trying and failing to place women on my client projects. My firm is actively supportive and not the problem in this particular case. Much to my horror, however, I've become somewhat of a repository of real-life examples of the kind of female self-sabotage commonly described in literature.

For the purpose of illustration, these are some of the most recent gems from actual client interviews that I sat in on and cringed my way through:

• [Candidate is asked about her professional history and does fine up to describing her A-levels, then volunteers the following] ... so I enrolled at Oxford but then I failed my math exams [...] and then I failed the exam again and was made to leave, so I enrolled with the OU instead because there are no formal acceptance criteria
• I just put that project on my CV for fillers, really my colleagues did almost all of the work on it. I only [description of precisely what she was interviewing for].
• I reckon one could [perfect response to the question] - but I've only read that and have never actually done it in practice
• ...

These are all highly competent women whom I would have placed easily had they not opted to take a mid-sized nuke and shoot themselves in the foot with it. I see an urgent need to actively coach my women to do better in such situations but, TBH, really don't know where to start. The issue is obviously bigger than just my projects, the problem being that it doesn't make commercial sense for the firm to keep on pushing its female quota if we can't get our current women employees staffed to begin with.

Possibly relevant: I don't do great at self-promotion myself but am aware that it's part of the job and actively self-police in such situations.

I'm in a perfect position to push the issue and maybe even start a larger initiative but could really use some helpful input.

Datun That's a really interesting observation.

I have actually noticed that I do this when giving student feedback. I will write "I think you need to restructure the essay...." rather than just "You need to restructure the essay...". I've consciously noticed that I'm doing this as I've been marking over the last few weeks and have gone back and corrected myself every single time.

I'm also going to try and recognise when I do this in emails/meetings/MN posts and bloody well stop myself

MineralWater

I do too. You will be amazed how removing 'I think' changes the impact of a sentence.

Especially if you are trying to persuade someone to your point of view, or if you're in sales, for example.

Women worry that they can't back up what they are saying. So they put in a caveat, just in case.

Men must also be aware that they can't always back up what they are saying. But it doesn't seem to have any impact on their opinion. Not being able to back something up doesn't fill them with worry or concern. If they get called out, they will just waffle on a bit more, and not care.

Neither does it seem to impact the opinion of people who are dealing with them. At least in the short term - obviously if someone consistently fucks up, no amount of confidence is going to save them.

The human reaction to confidence can't just be superficial. There has to be a good reason why we listen more to confident people. Perhaps it's evolutionary?

I'm following with interest.

I was recently at women in STEM student conference which was an eye opener. They said that women apply for things when they are 120% ready while men apply at 80%. After I decided (in my head) I'd rather be over ready than fail they went on to say that 80% is the norm so its not failing.

I missed so many deadlines this year because I wasn't ready. I self sabotaged.

Yes I've noticed this as well about applying and promotions. Women will accept a promotion if they are sure they can do the job - this is our 'ready'. Men see a promotion as a challenge, a way to develop, so 'ready' means 'will give it a try'

I still can't really grasp it. If you sell yourself at an interview, whilst knowing that you are only 80% ready/capable (and I've heard it's lower than that), what happens when you start the job?

You sit there on a Monday morning with an inbox overflowing and reports/papers strewn across your desk. You must think what the fuck? I can't do this.

But that can't be the case. You can't have all these men sitting there on the Monday thinking, I can't do this, whilst still over selling themselves at every interview they go to thereafter. It wouldn't make sense.

So they can't know that they are over selling themselves. Overselling themself must be an end in itself. Which they all understand!

Then when they come up against something they're not capable of, there must be some kind of filter that removes the understanding (and self judgement) that they are not capable.

And replaces it with something else that doesn't affect their ego.

Blaming the system. Blaming their predecessor. Or their subordinates. Or their boss. Externalising the fault.

Women internalise.

Same old, same old.

And, (while I'm on a roll), this is why women are so susceptible to gaslighting.

Their default position is to consider themselves to blame.

When I first heard the term gaslighting, I had a lightbulb moment.

Now I can spot it a mile off. Even saying it to somebody - stop gaslighting me - will give them pause.

Because it has a name!

It's a real tactic. And one that comes naturally to men. I'm not saying they know they are doing it, even. It's normal for them.

That doesn't mean it's acceptable, though.

But is it the case that the men who are only 80% ready really believe themselves to be about 95% ready? So, they believe that they only need to catch up or bullshit their way through a 5% deficiency rather than 20%, which isn't too hard?

I'm saying this as a woman with a promotion application under consideration as we speak

I'm saying this as a woman with a promotion application under consideration as we speak grin

I suppose it doesn't matter what he thinks. If he is 80% ready, he is 80% ready.

I'd just grill him relentlessly.

Following with interest as I definitely do this.
Have actively tried to stop apologising in emails and in person particularly with the very alpha male divisional head.
We are in the process of setting up a women's networking/experience sharing group at the moment for our location with the aim of so will be taking some of these insights to our next meeting & off to buy the nice girls book.

I still can't really grasp it. If you sell yourself at an interview, whilst knowing that you are only 80% ready/capable, what happens when you start the job?

Concrete example - if I wanted a promotion to next level, this would also involve dealing with a certain topic I have no experience in. I would, however, know how to do most of the job already. You could approach it in 2 different ways -

Option A: get more exposure to and experience in the unfamiliar topic, so I know I can do it. Then apply for promotion, because I know I can do all the required tasks 100%.
Option B. Apply for promotion. When unfamiliar task comes up, learn and try to figure it out on the job.

Datun Oh I totally agree but what I mean is that if he thinks he's only 80% ready then he might well show up on Monday morning and be like Fuuuuuck, I can't do this. There's so much I don't know.

But if he thinks he's 95% ready he might turn up and think Okay, there's some stuff I need to learn but I'm basically there

Either way, I agree, there's an under-qualified man at the helm.

I was encouraged by my very feminist female boss to put the promotion application in. I'm pretty sure I'm not at all ready for it. But, the biggest anxiety I have about it is that I don't want to draw attention to myself by having people know who I am, read my work, make a judgement about it and know I'm seeking promotion.

Stupid, sexist, misogynistic, self-sabotaging bullshit I know.

It is not always the individual woman's fault though.

I applied for a promotion when I was about 95% ready and didn't get it. A man had got it who had about 75% of the skills a few months earlier, but they then claimed the system had changed so I couldn't claim legal discrimination.

I did get promoted when I had 120% of what was needed, and then everyone said 'why didn't you do it sooner?' or 'about time'.

Sometimes the system is structured so that even women with exactly the same skills, or who have over-achieved, are still discriminated against in subtle ways that are then hard to fight (promotion is still very non-transparent in my organization).

I have seen this happen repeatedly in my organisation, and what tends to happen is that the woman goes off to lick their wounds and feels that the judgment is probably correct, so they don't push back. I pushed back and still got refused, and it's not that pleasant an experience.

The organisation doesn't feel sexist as it thinks it promotes some women so this is evidence it's fine, whereas really it has a problem of allowing the promotion of slightly underperforming males and blocking the promotion of more than qualified females, but in ways that make it very difficult to compare as no two candidates are equally qualified.

Wow, I was expecting a lot of "don't be ridiculous"

I'm studying for a final just now, I've been consistently over 85% but I'm convinced I'll fail this one (not good at exams) and have put up with a lot of mansplaining from blokes sitting at 60% which is nibbling at my confidence.

How do I know the scores? Because the majority vote was just to email the results table rather than make individual appointments! I am horrified before opening every email but the men seem to just get on with it!

But then on day one we (2 other women and me) were told we'd need to get 90% to be considered on par with men.

I agree, it's very often structural rather than individual.

In my line of work (I'm an academic), promotions are assessed on "hard facts" like how many publications, how much grant money, international collaborations (all things men do better with). The "softer" side of academia like student mentoring, pastoral support, outstanding teaching, widening participation (stuff that women excel at and are usually dumped with) is under-valued if not invisible.

Nonibaloni I saw something on Twitter today which suggested we rename "mansplaining" to "correctile dysfunction"

Mineral although I agree this can happen, I'm not talking about hard/soft targets, I'm talking about women with excellent grants and publications who mysteriously have to over-achieve, when men with, say, good publications are fine, and no-one questions their grants too much or whatever. I have a colleague who brought in a huge grant with a colleague, he was promoted, she wasn't and when she questioned this, was treated very poorly. There has also been an unequal distribution of workloads with very senior men sitting around doing less and junior women seeking promotion taking the load.

It's all very subtle though, and because the process is not transparent and the criteria change, and you don't know what other colleagues put forward in their application/got in return, it's hard to be able to bring a direct discrimination case.

mineral definitely more cutting.

I love correctile dysfunction

Can I ask a quick question? (I'm totally stuck and looking for a distraction)

Those of you who have interviewed: would it be as bad as it sounds in my head to say "I scored X in this subject which is in the top band through hard work and determination. It is also worth noting that the my peer group averaged Y 2 bands lower and indeed only 1 person scored higher.

I don't know I could actually say it but it's true and there's a position I really want and I think will be very popular.

I always find it easier to boast on paper, so I encourage students to put down, for example, their top marks underneath the degree classification or put that in the cover letter.

The biggest problem is if you don't boast either on paper or in the interview, it's possible a more self-effacing style will be fine if your CV is outstanding and you have highlighted all the good bits (I've seen some corkingly bad CVs over the years).

I think, having been involved in recruiting, interviewing and hiring for many years there are an awful lot of sweeping generalisations being made.

Those of you who have interviewed: would it be as bad as it sounds in my head to say "I scored X in this subject which is in the top band through hard work and determination. It is also worth noting that the my peer group averaged Y 2 bands lower and indeed only 1 person scored higher

Bluntly? I would not be particularly interested and would wonder why you were wittering on. Also I would have no way of verifying any of it.

Noni I would leave out the "hard work and determination" bit. I makes it sound like you only did really well because of your hard work rather than a natural talent IYSWIM.

""I scored X in this subject which is in the top band through hard work and determination. It is also worth noting that the my peer group averaged Y 2 bands lower and indeed only 1 person scored higher"

This is a bit long-winded. Would the interviewer know it's in the top band? Does this need to be pointed out? I'd just say:

"I scored X for this subject which was the second best mark among my cohort"

Ok thanks. I know I need to sell myself , just don't actually know how to do that.

I agree it's hard to know how to sell yourself while equally not being perceived as overly arrogant, especially in the artificial format of an interview.

Especially in civil service type interviews when it's one question per competence, you have up to 10 minutes to answer the question, and you have to explain for example "a time when you have maintained an effective service in difficult circs", covering all of:
"Get the best out of people by giving enthusiastic and
encouraging messages about priorities, objectives and
expectations
Clarify business priorities, roles and responsibilities and
secure individual and team ownership
Adopt clear processes and standards for managing
performance at all levels
Act as a role model in supporting and energising teams to build confidence in their ability to deliver outcomes
Maintain effective performance in difficult and challenging circumstances, encouraging others to do the same
Review, challenge and adjust performance levels to ensure quality outcomes are delivered on time, rewarding success"

• with enough detail to convince them that you did the stuff and that it was indeed challenging, but without boring them rigid.

Phrases to make clear you 'acted as a role model', rather than just were seen as one, gratefully appreciated...