Ask a woman if she is ambitious and you either get a short, horrified ”no”, or a long speech in which the word is defined, redefined, qualified and explained. After a generation of women working outside the home, they are still squirming with embarrassment around an old problem — ambition.
That’s what jumps off the pages of the recently published book, A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom (Palgrave Macmillan). In an attempt to explain why women account for only 3,7% of executive board members of the FTSE 100 list of top British companies and what can be done about it, authors Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham interviewed dozens of women on their way up the corporate hierarchy, their bosses and the headhunters. What peppered these interviews were comments about women’s perceived lack of ambition.
”Some women are just not interested in making the sacrifices, because they don’t value what they get for it. Men value status and position much more,” said a former human resources director of an investment bank. Another senior female executive observed, ”I don’t see as many absolutely driven women as men.”
Implicit in many of these kinds of remarks is a perception of ambition as competitive, aggressive and driven, and that’s the problem, says Thomson: ”There’s a mismatch of perception. Male patterns of ambition mean that the man makes it explicit; he has no embarrassment about saying he’s ambitious and what job he wants next.” On the other hand, women often don’t articulate the job they want — ”they hope to be noticed”.
This kind of behaviour can be characterised as ”passive” by colleagues and bosses. It can also be seen as lacking the drive and hunger needed for the job. A key ingredient to fulfil ambition is self-promotion; Thomson reckons decisions to promote someone are 10% based on the person’s skills, 30% on their being known to be capable, and a whopping 60% about simply being known — they’re heard at meetings, they speak up, they network. They throw themselves around. But this is where women often fail; ”too many women are modest and self-deprecating — it’s the ‘only little me’ syndrome,” concludes Thomson.
The underlying problem, argues Dr Anna Fels, an American psychiatrist and author of a study on female ambition, Necessary Dreams, is that ”ambition has been confused with narcissism — a rise above others at the expense of others”. While it is acceptable — even admirable — in men, ambitious women are often seen as aggressive and unfeminine. The difference is how society shapes men and women’s aspirations to fulfil different roles. The thesis of her book is that both men and women share a deep need for recognition. ”Where men and women get attention and affirmation is where they will put their energy.” So if a female senior executive gets a lot of negative feedback, other women will be turned off. The stereotype of the ”ball-breaking” female boss acts only as a deterrent to other women.
”Society defines key elements of identity differently for men and women — both will pursue very aggressively those things which make them feel validated. For women, marriage and children can dominate their thinking; men’s status is defined by job and income.”
The socialisation into restricting female ambition begins early, argues Fels, as girls learn those skills of self-deprecation and modesty, which ensure men don’t find them threatening. Those women who do get to the top are disrupting these patterns of behaviour and, Thomson argues, they can only be ”catalysts for change” in organisations that have been built usually entirely around male forms of interaction. The fallout can be costly as men fight back.
”On a very practical level, women’s voices are softer and they have to struggle to be heard — that can make them sound shrill. Men know how to hold the floor and won’t give women space. Women have to learn skills of how to make a point in a meeting and ensure they keep ownership of their own ideas.”
These issues of self-belief and organisational culture are a far greater block to female ambition, argues Thomson, than the much commented-on double shift of work and home. In her study, many of the women had older children and enough money to cushion the demands of their private lives, and yet still they were struggling to make it through the glass ceiling. — Â