When to use a T-chart: dividing labor for a group project, pros and cons of dropping a class, grocery lists. When not to use a T-chart: explaining gender roles. Yet, the business communications textbook that every McCombs student uses, “Business Communication: Process & Product,” uses a two-column diagram to describe the different communication styles of men and women. The “Career Coach” box explains that men use “take-charge speech,” while women default to “hesitant, indirect, soft speech.” Men “exhibit skill and knowledge.” Women “establish rapport.” Irritated, I immediately showed the section to my roommate who reacted with a similar disdain.
My main grievance is not with the textbook, but with the misconception that we can sort human behavior like a deck of cards. The textbook claims that an awareness of behavioral trends makes one a “more sensitive listener,” but true sensitivity deals with each person as an individual, not a stereotype. A “knowledgeable listener” does not treat every encounter as a data point that either conforms to or deviates from the norm.
Such clearly delineated gender roles create expectations of how people should behave. “It shouldn’t be shocking to meet a strong, authoritative woman,” noted Jessica Breckenridge, a business honors and marketing junior. However, authoritative women will shock someone who has internalized the insidious reminders that women favor “small, confined” gestures. A meta-analysis in the Journal of Applied Psychology warns of a “backlash effect … against those who deviate from gender norms.” Highly individualistic women, for example, may come across as “unlikable” and leave a negative impression on potential employers.
The same study raises another issue with a T-chart approach to gender norms: Even if stereotypes are accurate in the aggregate, they often lead to inaccurate assumptions when applied to individuals. Even though the textbook’s author does not cite incorrect behavioral trends, the many exceptions indicate that they should not inform professional interactions.
I worry that after a cursory glance at the chart, a reader will conclude that women are naturally more likely to speak hesitantly. Repeated, imperceptible exposure to such messages could lead people to believe that elevated levels of estrogen, perhaps, account for women’s timid communication style. In reality, studies suggest that different choices and expressions of gender are learned during childhood rather than biologically predetermined. To be fair, the source of gender norms lies beyond the purview of a business textbook. However, if a textbook chooses to broach the topic of gender norms, it has a responsibility to justify its assumptions and simplifications. A source giving career advice cannot assume that its audience will glean an egalitarian message.
The bad news: The book I have referenced was published in 2014 and cannot hide behind the excuse of being “outdated.” The good news: Other forms of instruction in the business world take a more productive approach to gender norms. Letitia Monsey, an academic adviser for the Business Honors Program, explained that in her professional life, discussions about gender focus on “inclusive language” and learning how to empathize with “students with different gender identities.” Textbooks can create “sensitive listeners” by emphasizing the range of experiences people bring to the table.
I see nothing productive about lumping behavior into two rigid categories unless we acknowledge that those categories could result from self-perpetuating social norms. It is not problematic to note that men are more likely to interrupt as long as women don’t get used to being interrupted.
Marabella is a business honors, Plan II and Spanish freshman from Austin.
