I spent last week with a very impressive group of 60 women, all high-potential middle managers in the cable industry. During the week, I had the honor and pleasure of meeting with most of them one-on-one for a brief, informal coaching session. Many of them were looking for career advice, some wanted insights about how to deal with difficult employee issues, while others were in the midst of complicated political situations and were asking about how to proceed.
But by far the most common topic was confidence - and how that shows up in the ways we talk to ourselves about ourselves. Women, I have come to believe after having thousands of conversations on this topic over the past 30 years, tend to be much more self-critical than men - and that really gets in their way when it comes to accomplishing all they're capable of doing at work.
It seems to me that the majority of women tend to under-estimate their knowledge and competence, while men tend to over-estimate their abilities. Many studies support this, including some noted in this article on men's and women's investment behaviors. As one of the women in last week's session said to me, "Most men seem to think, 'I'm awesome' most of the time, while women are more likely to think, 'I'm not good enough.'"
As the week went by, I came to a hypothesis about why this should be so, based on historic gender roles and associated brain development. [A caveat: this is pure speculation, and not supported by any science that I'm aware of - so believe it or not, as you wish.]
So: imagine any point in human history up until about 500 years ago. Most men, much of the time, were primarily involved in two tasks: killing (animals, other people), and protecting themselves, their families and their possessions from being killed or taken. The men who were best at these two tasks tended to survive to reproduce, and to have children who lived to adulthood. I speculate that the most useful attitude and internal monologue to support success in both these tasks was "I'm awesome," followed by additional affirmation like, "That Mastodon is toast" or "Those Picts are goin' down."
Women, on the other hand, were largely involved in inventing civilization: growing food; keeping children alive and well; figuring out which plants were dangerous and which had useful properties; creating clothing and shelter; engaging in trade; evolving language. Those who were best at these tasks also tended to survive to reproduce, and to have children who lived to adulthood. This traditional 'woman's work' involved more nuanced accomplishments that benefit from reflection and improvement. A more complex internal monologue might best support success, something like, "My corn isn't growing very well - her corn is much taller. I wonder what she did to it?" or "My younger child doesn't seem as strong as my older child - have I fed him differently? What else might I do?"
In other words, an overdose of self-confidence may have benefitted our male ancestors, while daily self-criticism may have benefited our female progenitors.
If my theory is true - I leave that to you to decide - I submit to you that our current point in history seems to demand a more balanced response. Strict gender roles are in the process of evaporating. In modern business, killing has become both metaphorical (as in "I killed that presentation"), and not gender-related: both men and women need to "kill." At the same time, the need to invent and re-invent civilization has, if anything, increased - and is no longer the province of women alone. We all need to be deeply engaged in the effort to find our way into the future.
So I'm hoping that more women will start to access some of that traditionally male "I'm awesome" self-talk, and that more men will begin to find the value in the "How can I get better" self-talk that's been historically female. Because, in this century, both the ability to learn new things and the confidence to achieve them are sorely needed.
_____
Find out what Erika and the team at Proteus do to support leader readiness.
