Working Women: Are Women Their Own Worst Enemy? A Closer Look at How Women Impede Career Development of Other Women

Introduction

At one time in our history, men considered women as inferior. A woman’s role lay in the family home as she tended to her children and husband. Nonetheless, as the years passed, women began to utilize their ability to multitask, so they extended their roles to the workforce. Because of women’s progress, it is no longer unusual to find women in corporate America; however, it seems that females have their adversaries, and their rivals are not the opposite sex. Instead, women compete with other women, and they do not always play nice. Researchers contribute it to indirect aggression based on competition, but one must consider the aggression’s origin. It is likely that corporate women sabotage their fellow female co-workers due to leadership styles and emotional health. 

For the most part, we assume assertive self-starters are beneficial to the workplace, but it seems to depend on one’s gender. There have been numerous case studies showing the differences in gender in the workplace. Essentially, women may appreciate other women as their superiors, but it depends on their bosses’ leadership styles. For instance, female employees “reacted less favorably to women who took on an autocratic management style” (Psychology Today, 1992) In other words, if a woman displays any stereotypical male characteristics such as independence or competence, both men and women respond to her negatively. Traditionally, women are supposed to be nurturers. If a female boss shows her employees compassion, they prefer her leadership styles. Therefore, while personal style seems to be a small component, this suggests that leadership style affects how women treat each other (Eagly, Klonsky, &Makhijani, 1992).

Perhaps it is the most driven women that tend to sabotage their female co-workers. In addition, it is likely that she treats her male and female co-workers the same. Nevertheless, the research emphasizes that “an egalitarian gender ideology” (Gaunt & Benjamin, 2007, p. 351) will plague women more so than men. Consequently, corporate women must take on an exceeding amount of stress because their employees are predominantly male, so it is possible in their fight for equality that women are "adopting stereotypical practices" (Artz, Nicholson, & Magnuson, 2008, p. 285). Essentially, females adopt their male counterparts’ leadership styles. It seems in order for a woman to be an effective and well-liked employer, she has to exercise control with compassion. 

Either way, the corporate world seems to be a competitive environment. Valillancourt (2011) suggests women are competitive in two ways. They either view the other female as "intersexual competition" or "intrasexual competition" (Vaillancourt, 2011, p. 569). Intersexual competition is a strategy in which woman uses "self-promotion" (Vaillancourt, 2011, p. 569). In this case, a woman undermines another woman by ignoring her skills. Instead, she only promotes herself. Because she ignores the other woman, essentially, she is implying that the other woman is not important enough. On the other hand, intrasexual competition is a strategy in which one woman puts down her rival. In this case, the rival is the other woman. Based on her study, Michelle Duguid (2011) determined women experience “‘value threat’ from other successful women.” There are two components of value threat. For instance, powerful women experience “competitive threat” (Duguid, 2011) if they feel like another woman is more experienced. On the other hand, if they view some women as less qualified, they consider them a “collective threat” (Duguid, 2011). In this way, all females are threats. On the other hand, it is possible that females are more perceptive to the competition around them, and it may not be due to gender. In this way, it may actually be the workplace’s inner-structure that perpetuates this side. Granted, high paying jobs often build on competitive natures because everyone is trying to outdo the other. Nevertheless, while a female executive has various strategies at her disposal, Vaillancourt (2005) suggests women are able to sense indirect aggression because they pick up "on the subtle nuances.”

Overall, it seems as though women feel threatened by other women if they sense a threat. Malone (2004) suggests that “In addition to the antecedents of a competitive climate and a triggering event, perceptions also play a role in envy” (p. 9). Often envy leads us to a variety of harmful behaviors, so it is likely that the corporate world is not immune to such acts. While there are very little studies in what actually contributes to this, a few researchers suggest we take a deep look into our "psychological distress" (Elwer, Harryson, Bolin, &Hammarström, 2013, p. 2). According to Gaunt and Benjamin (2007), women in high profile jobs often view their jobs as part of their identities. In that case, job insecurity is more of a reality than an unusual emotion. On the other hand, some individuals are particularly susceptible to insecurities. Insecurities often form in childhood, and merely grow as we mature. At the same time, as adults mature, their indirect aggression becomes more refined (Forrest, Eatough, & Shevlin, 2007, p. 87). Nevertheless, we expect that the corporate world mostly contains high achievers. Sills (2008) emphasizes that “envy derives from a complex cocktail of competitiveness, emotional insecurity, and situational dissatisfaction.” In other words, perhaps both genders exhibit such behaviors, but only women are able to tune in. Women are adaptable to their environment, and as Lemasters (2013) suggests, it seems women’s surroundings directly contribute to their reactions and behavior. O’Conner (2012) agrees and hints that women’s changes depending on the social construction of their environments. 

Conclusion

A variety of components affect the corporate female, and while the research is limited, it seems that we should probe their relationships with both male and female co-workers. It is commonly accepted that men are more practical and women are more emotional, so perhaps women are more intuitive when it comes to indirect aggression. In addition, a woman’s emotional health may cause her to react in unbecoming ways. As we evolve, women will continue to play an active role in corporate America, so it would serve us well if they were able to use their inner strengths to their benefit. While envy will continue to exist, it is essential that we learn other ways in which it may become our strength instead of our weakness.  

References

Artz, S., Nicholson, D., & Magnuson, D. (2008). Examining sex differences in the use of direct and indirect aggression. Gender Issues, 25(4), 267-288. doi:10.1007/s12147-008-9065-5

Duguid, M. (2011). Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 104-115. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.009

Eagly, A. H., Klonsky, B. G., &Makhijani, M. G. (1992).Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA11835194&v=2.1&u=nm_a_albtechvi&it=r&p=SPJ.SP18&sw=w

Elwér, S., Harryson, L., Bolin, M., &Hammarström, A. (2013). Patterns of gender equality at workplaces and psychological distress. Plos ONE, 8(1), 1-10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053246

Forrest, S., Eatough, V., & Shevlin, M. (2005). Measuring adult indirect aggression: The development and psychometric assessment of the indirect aggression scales. Aggressive Behavior, 31(1), 84-97. doi:10.1002/ab.20074

Gaunt, R., & Benjamin, O. (2007). Job insecurity, stress and gender. Community, Work & Family, 10(3), 341-355. doi:10.1080/13668800701456336

Lemasters, L., & Roach, V. (2012). 3-dimensional portrait of the female CEO. International Journal Of Educational Leadership Preparation, 7(1) 

Malone, P. (2004). Malicious envy in the workplace. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1.

O'Connor, M. A. (2012). Women executives in gladiator corporate cultures: The behavioral dynamics of gender, ego, and power. Maryland Law Review, 65(2), 466-490. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3253&context=mlr

Psychology Today. (1992, July-August). She scores, he shoots. Psychology Today, 25(4), 10. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA12376001&v=2.1&u=nm_a_albtechvi&it=r&p=SPJ.SP18&sw=w

Sills, J. (2008, September-October). When green is mean: Envy is common and corrosive--and usually denied, says Judith Sills, Ph.D. Most often, it stalks the office as a sense of unfairness. Psychology Today, 41(5), 64+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA188795626&v=2.1&u=nm_a_albtechvi&it=r&p=SPJ.SP18&sw=w

Vaillancourt, T., & Sharma, A. (2011). Intolerance of sexy peers: Intrasexual competition among women. Aggressive Behavior, 37(6), 569-577. doi:10.1002/ab.20413