Open Thread: Women and “Weak Language” at Work
Women's communication in the workplace has thoroughly analyzed, discussed, and policed — including by women themselves — but some of the common advice on adjusting your language to succeed at work may need a closer look. (We touched on this topic in our post on bad career advice for women a couple of years ago.) A lot of tips for women on sounding more authoritative seem smart at face value, but it's not always that simple.
The New York Times recently published an essay by Wharton organizational psychologist Dr. Adam Grant titled “Women Know Exactly What They’re Doing When They Use ‘Weak Language,'” (gift link) that challenges the generally accepted advice for women's workplace communication. Let's talk about it!
Readers, what are your strategies for successful communication as a woman in the workplace? In emails, for example, do you find yourself including the “just” in “Just checking in,” or using exclamation points to soften the tone? (This TikTok strikes a chord for me…) On the flip side, have you tried to communicate more assertively at work? How much do you think someone's use of “weak” or “strong” language depends on generation/age rather than gender and sexism?
{related: how to ask for a raise}
Women and Weak Language at Work
In his NYT essay, Dr. Grant cites research showing that women, especially Black women, are often punished when they communicate more assertively at work, as they're often seen as difficult or abrasive. No surprise there — but he also explains how “weak” language can actually be a source of strength for women.
He believes that using language seen as “weak” has several advantages: It demonstrates “interpersonal sensitivity,” can spare women from sexist judgments (and their consequences), and can make it more likely for women to get what they ask for, such as a raise. This kind of language may include using hedges (“kind of”), disclaimers (“I might be wrong, but…”), and questions (“right?”).
In fact, he notes, in one experiment where women negotiated for a raise using a script that sounded tentative, they were more likely to get the raise. (“I don’t know how typical it is for people at my level to negotiate,” they said, . . . “but I’m hopeful you’ll see my skill at negotiating as something important that I bring to the job.”)
Here are a few excerpts from the piece:
In 29 studies, women in a variety of situations had a tendency to use more “tentative language” than men. But that language doesn’t reflect a lack of assertiveness or conviction. Rather, it’s a way to convey interpersonal sensitivity — interest in other people’s perspectives — and that’s why it’s powerful.
And I'm sure we've all seen this kind of language, both from ourselves and others around us. But while Grant is outraged about it, he also notes that we should be challenging the stereotypes themselves, recognizing the difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness:
It’s outrageous that women have to tame their tongues to protect fragile male egos, but the likability penalty is still firmly in place. And it’s outrageous that it’s easier for me to call out these dynamics than it is for women, who get penalized if they dare to point out the same disparities. Instead of punishing women for challenging stereotypes, we should be challenging the stereotypes themselves.
His conclusion: that we should normalize weak language as a way to “express concern and humility.” He continues: “If we do that, we won’t have to keep encouraging women to communicate more forcefully. Instead, we’ll finally be able to recognize the difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness.”
{related: negotiating a salary and other benefits}
Readers, what do you think? Does using “weaker” or “softer” language have its advantages at work? Do you use softer language because it fits your personality and feels natural, or you do it deliberately to avoid being penalized for a stronger communication style? Do you see it simply as a strategy to get ahead within patriarchal double standards? Or, do you communicate assertively with a “no-nonsense” tone, no matter what? More broadly, how much of our communication style do you think is influenced by decades of gender socialization?
I read the NYT article, and one thing that jumped out is the alleged fact that women do better when they use “tentative” language with a male audience, but not as well when they take this approach with other women. Honestly, it’s all so incredibly exhausting!
I personally codeswitch between tentative language and normal speech based on the audience and situation. Sometimes I am not aware I am doing it, but many times it is very intentional and calculated.
+1, I 100% use it as a strategy
Same. I use it intentionally often. But, I find myself doing it less so naturally, and only will do it intentionally after I’ve decided that is the best route to get the desired outcome.
I’m surprised they didn’t say anything about upspeak. It’s almost always women who use it, and I think it can really undermine what we say. Everything sounds so tentative?
Yes yes yes…
Ever since this vocal mannerism was pointed out to me, I cringe when I hear it… particularly with young women who already are struggling in some of my male dominated environments to push through.
I think it is interesting that you did the written equivalent of upspeak when you ended the last sentence with a question mark. If you aren’t aware, you were making an affirmative statement, which calls for a period. Even though it is a statement of opinion (the opinion of a woman), it is an affirmative statement. Please reconsider using this “tell” as to your lack of confidence.
Um, I did it deliberately, but thanks for the ‘splanation.
Oh. Bravo!
I moved from Asia to a Western country years ago. In Asia, my rather straightforward and blunt approach was seen as aggressive. In the West, it makes no real difference whether I use upspeak, tentative language or blunt language. I just can’t win.