The fixation on invulnerability shows up perhaps most acutely and destructively in the context of conflict, where the gendered traits learned in grade school are amplified. Most leaders and teams I work with fail to value both task and relationship in concert amid conflict. In general, I notice women who disagree in silence. They live by the adage, “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” I often have to read their body language and draw out their dissent, which is often met with responses like, “It’s okay,” “It’s not a big deal,” or “I’m sorry, but . . . .” The dissent is often about how the decisions made will affect others. Conversely, most men struggle to understand the emotional complexities at play, which enables them to act swiftly, only later to realize the damaging relational impact of their decisions.
One of the companies I work with is led by two women and two men. All are parents, but the women take the lead on parenting responsibilities, and the two dads don’t. The women are highly driven and capable. One of the male leaders hired a consultant to host a sales training, which was scheduled for early September. At our quarterly planning session, one of the topics on our list was “Sales Training.” I asked what the root of the issue was.
Angela, one of the moms, said, “The sales training is scheduled for the first day of school, and I wish there could be some consideration for things like this.”
Jake, one of the dads, responded, “Angela, you know we hugely support working moms. If you can’t attend the training or need to come late, that’s fine.”
“That’s not the issue,” Angela said. “I’m just asking for consideration when it comes to picking these dates.”
Jake leaned in, put his elbows on the conference table, and opened his palms to the sky. “Angela, we have twenty-six people in the company. We’d never get anything done if we tried to meet everyone’s needs. You have two little kids at home. If you want to work part-time for a couple of years to be there for your kids, you know we’d support you in that.”
Angela’s gaze was fixed on her notepad as she retraced a circle with her pen. Her lip quivered.
While Jake genuinely cares for Angela and is trying to be flexible and supportive, his primary focus on the task is damaging to the relationship and ineffective at solving the real issue, which is more subtle and complex. Angela didn’t want to come in late or work part-time. She loves her job and values her commitment to it. Suggesting she comes in late or works part-time devalued a part of her identity that is also important to her. The nuance that Jake was missing was that seeing was that Angela wasn’t looking for permission to contribute less, but rather a partnership to find a way to contribute equally, while also being a committed mom.
I asked Jake what he was hearing Angela say. He said, “She wants us to find a way to have everyone at the training.”
I asked Angela if that’s what she was saying. She shook her head once and said, “Nope.” Knowing that would be her answer and sensing she wasn’t emotionally available for this conversation, I asked Jake if he was open to some coaching. He lifted his open palms to his ears and said, “Please. I’m clearly missing something here.”
“I know you think Angela is highly qualified,” I said, “and I can hear how you genuinely support her decision to show up for her kids.” “Of course,” he said. “I think I’ve made that pretty clear.”
“You have,” I said. “The subtle, but important, point that I don’t think you’re hearing is that by offering Angela the option to go to part-time— which is a very caring offer— you’re implying that she can’t be a great leader and a great mom. The need I’m hearing her express isn’t to work less, but for us, as a team, to work together to consider the demands of working parents in ways that enable them to contribute as leaders while also being considerate of their roles as parents. Does that make sense?”
Jake’s eyes opened like silver dollars. “Yeah, it does,” he said. He looked at Angela and said, “I was trying to show you that we absolutely respect your role as a mom. So much so that we’d be fine to have you drop to part-time.”
“I know that’s what you were trying to do, but hearing that really hurt.” Angela said, “It felt like you were forcing me to choose between being a leader and being a mom.”
“I can understand that now,” Jake said. “I’m sorry.”
Only once we collectively understood this was the real issue were we able to arrive at a solution that addressed the core concern. The solution the team landed on was to poll everyone in advance of future events with several dates and choose the one that worked for the majority while offering flexibility for anyone with family commitments that couldn’t be changed. This solution valued both the task— ensuring we can host company events without endless planning— and the relationship— consideration for the working parents to show up for their families while also prioritizing their work.
I checked in with Angela during a break to see how she was doing. She said, “This is why I just don’t say anything. But I feel like I have to because I’m on the leadership team, and nobody else is going to speak up on behalf of the other women.” When women are relationship-driven, they’re often well-liked but seen as lacking the gumption needed to lead. Yet, when they are task-driven, their strong opinions are more often met with resistance.
Women have been conditioned to understand that masculine qualities like decisive action and competitiveness are viewed negatively when portrayed by women. Conversely, feminine qualities like vulnerability and emotional intelligence, which often come more naturally to women, are devalued (and desperately needed) in male- dominated workplaces.
There’s an unvoiced expectation of women to display greater empathy towards the feelings of others and be more supportive and nurturing rather than adversarial. I’ve noticed that women tend to take conflict more personally, viewing it as disruptive, which leads them to shy away from it. This tendency often results in women feeling they need to avoid conflict rather than embrace it. To take it a step further, when conflict is avoided, it usually has an overly negative impact on women. Research indicates that both men and women view conflict among women negatively.36 However, women are more likely to attack other women because they feel it’s safer and more acceptable than attacking a man. Women are also more likely to openly judge themselves first to avoid the judgment of others. As a result, women beat themselves up for a story of not being enough, while men believe they’re more than enough.
Apologizing is another illustration of overly feminine leadership often demonstrated by women. While it may seem like saying “I’m sorry” is a vulnerable act, it is often used to avoid conflict. Essentially, they proactively recuse themselves from conflict by preemptively assuming fault. It’s forfeiting the fight before it begins. Men amplify their value; women minimize theirs. Men come out swinging, and women duck out of the ring. Both approaches are ineffective when it comes to engaging in productive conflict.
Have you ever downplayed your experience to not be perceived as overly confident? Or have you demonstrated you’re a little more knowledgeable on a subject than you really are to win the respect of a colleague or client? These ways of showing up are normal. What’s exceptional is recognizing when this happens and course- correcting.
One leadership team I coached consistently made decisions, often self-admittedly poor ones, because of how a potential change would be received by a few members of the team. They continued not making the decisions they thought were necessary because they didn’t want to deal with the fallout from these few team members. This is a manifestation of unhealthy feminine leadership.
Conversely, another team I coached had two leadership team members who would disagree about something related to the business and quickly devolve into statements like, “You’re always so defensive,” and “You only think about what’s best for you and your team but never consider how it impacts the rest of us.” These statements illustrate an unhealthy masculine approach to conflict by focusing on the person rather than the issue at hand.
Without consistently experiencing productive conflict, which values the task and the relationship, teams grow increasingly combative or conflict-averse. Ironically, I’ve found that both men and women view honest and candid conflict as courageous and beneficial. You’re hopefully starting to see that by over- valuing masculine and feminine traits, all genders are boxed into socially constructed and damaging expectations informing how they should show up, which often misaligns with who they truly are.
What’s most damaging is that when people avoid or ineffectively deal with conflict over time, they grow disconnected from themselves. They stop trusting their intuition and compromise their integrity. This inability to effectively express oneself affects all genders but quite differently. According to Nirao Shah, a Stanford professor of psychiatry and neurobiology, suppressed men are twice as likely to become alcohol or drug dependent. In contrast, suppressed women are twice as likely to experience clinical depression.37 Without productive conflict, we often keep the most essential parts of ourselves hidden, and we and our teams suffer.
Productive conflict requires leaders to practice the feminine characteristics of curiosity, connection, and introspection about their thoughts and feelings, as well as those of others. It also requires the masculine characteristics of speaking candidly, making decisions, and upholding accountability to execute the task at hand. This integrated approach to conflict leads to the best ideas, deeper ownership of the outcomes, and more resilient relationships. As the leader of an organization, how you practice conflict sets the tone for your team, and ultimately, your company.
You now see how overvaluing either a masculine or feminine approach to conflict is unproductive. Now it’s time to understand what productive conflict is as you learn two disciplines and a methodology to engage in it while honoring both the task and the relationship.
An excerpt from Inviting Genius: How Good Leaders Use Conflict to Become Great.
