Differences in Gender Communication

Lilia Murray & Adam Murray

March 17th, 2005

LIS 650: Library Administration & Management

Dr. Julie Hersberger

Introduction

This paper attempts to review for the reader a selection of literature that study and

analyze the differences that exist between men and women and the manner in which they

communicate. Not only do these pieces of literature fall into different categories and

specialties, they also deliver varied opinions and results as to what causes the differences

discussed. By becoming familiar with the many aspects of gender communication

differences, the responsible worker or manager can synthesize those findings into a
methodology that enhances work place communication.

The literature available on gender communication differences, when analyzed,

display themes of discussion. They are listed below in order of importance, followed by

the different trends that fall under each theme:

 Observable Behaviors

 Mixed-Gender Supervisors and Subordinates

 Mixed-Gender Coworkers

 Mixed-Gender Interview Sessions

 Theme: Non-Verbal Differences

 Body Language

 Sexual Harassment

 Theme: Stereotypes

 Development and Perpetuation

 Awareness and Avoidance

 Theme: Counter-Effects

 Theme: Computer-Mediated Communication

 Theme: Implications for Libraries

The following pages will analyze these themes and their trends in more detail.

Verbal Differences

Investigations into the differences between men and women and the ways in

which they communicate span many areas of inquiry, including psychology, sociology,

and business literature. The primary focus of all these fields is on the verbal differences

between genders. As most articles point out, both genders use the same language...where
then does the difference in use come about?

The most basic studies of gender communication differences, such as those by

Rosner, Cangemi, and Chambers, list several findings they claim to be strictly observable

behaviors. For example, Rosner states that men speak to convey facts, not details, and

utilize language as a means of independence; that is to say, they speak to maintain or

demonstrate deservedness of authority (2001). This same author describes the speech

patterns of women as being driven toward detail and a sense of developing relationships,

rather than sustaining independence. According to Rosner, males and females use

language to control the level of intimacy (2001). Both Cangemi and Chambers mark the

use of qualifying statements by females, such as “Don’t you think?” as an attempt to

engender a non-hostile atmosphere, where as men do the exact opposite in an attempt to

spur confrontation and competition (Cangemi, 2001)(Chambers, 2003). These authors

state language is used as a representation of social power; those who have or want social

power (which tend to be men) use language to either demonstrate dominance or to gain it,

while those who do not have social power (usually women) use it to maintain peaceful

and harmonious relations with those in charge. (Cangemi, 2001)(Chambers, 2003).

Studies of workplace communication reveal many of these same findings. Coates

portrays how the tendency of women to talk more when giving orders to male
Allen/Murray Differences in Gender Communication:
LIS 650

subordinates creates in the male a distance that the woman then interprets as resentment

(2004). Coates also describes how the scarcity of words and emotion when a male

supervisor gives orders to a female employee may engender in the woman a desire to

strengthen their relationship via words. This creates for the male an illusion of

inattention on the part of the woman (2004). Most of these authors point out that such

differences in perspective may impede either gender’s progress up the company ladder.

Yet another trend in the literature studying verbal communication differences in

Although most literature in this field addresses the gender communication problems

encountered between manager and subordinate, Holmes brings up the presence of gender

differences affecting communication between peers. Holmes describes how the friendly

argumentative competition that normally occurs between males or the relation-building

banter between females can lead to drastic misinterpretations in a mixed-gender task

force (2003).

A final noticeable trend in the investigation of verbal differences between genders

is the literature addressing mixed-gender interview sessions. The training manuals and

literature many businesses produce to ensure equality during the interview mainly

document what constitutes an illegal interview question. This type of information is best

exemplified in the writings of Bell, who details the types of questions that are prohibited

by law (but are many times asked anyway). These laws are in place to protect women

from discrimination in the hiring process, and run counter to the normal studies of gender

communication differences in the sense that the women being interviewed understand the

nature of the questions (such as “Do you plan to have a baby in the future?”) but rather

are made to feel uncomfortable by the prying character of the questions (Bell, 2000).

All of these numerous perspectives contribute to making verbal differences the primary
Allen/Murray Differences in Gender Communication:
LIS 650

focus of the available literature regarding gender communication.

Non-Verbal Differences

The second-most prevalent theme of discussion regarding gender communication

differences is the study of non-verbal differences. Many of the authors are in agreement

about the types and effects of non-verbal communication, resulting in fewer areas of

investigation. Nearly all the authors who discuss non-verbal gender communication
differences do so by putting forth examples, as exemplified by authors Wharton, Kitchen,

and Sorenson. They posit the notion that posture and body language do more to hinder

effective communication between genders by subconsciously indicating discomfort,

uneasiness, aggression, and impatience (Wharton, 2005). Wharton explains how a female

manager giving directions to a male subordinate may invoke in the male a belief of her

incompetence. This is because her body language suggests to the man that she is too

nervous, when this is actually not the case (Wharton, 2005). On the other hand, Kitchen

describes how a woman subordinate may believe her male manager to be angry with her

when he is merely being direct and succinct (2001). In yet a different perspective,

Sorenson depicts the nodding of heads by women to be interpreted by their male co-

workers as agreement and acceptance, when they are merely intended by the women as

an indication of attention (Sorenson, 2001).

A secondary trend in the literature detailing non-verbal communication

behavior in the workplace deals with the issue of sexual harassment, represented here by

Gustafsson. He argues that while overt (verbal) sexual harassment occurs, there are more

subtle ways in which men create a communication gap through unconscious attitudes or

mannerisms that put women on the defensive (Gustafsson, 2000). All of these pieces of

literature are valuable by providing to the reader different scenarios that encapsulate the
Allen/Murray Differences in Gender Communication:
LIS 650

essence of the gender communication gap.

Stereotypes

Analysis of the literature regarding either verbal or non-verbal communication

differences reveals an interesting, more subtle theme of discussion: the development and

perpetuation of gender stereotypes. Most of the authors above conclude their findings

with references to gender stereotypes. Still others, represented in this review by Hayes
and Samartseva, focus on and detail the way stereotypes affect gender communication.

Hayes states that stereotypes are the single most cause of misunderstandings between the

genders in the work place, especially larger organizations where the work force doesn’t

have a chance to develop closer relationships (2004). Hayes argues that when people are

placed in a confrontation with an unknown person, or when that person’s mood and

attitude is an unknown factor, people fall back subconsciously to their stereotyped images

in order to interpret both verbal and non-verbal communication (2004). Samartseva

discusses how stereotypes are conceptual frameworks built from observable behaviors

that act as a way of predicting the world. However, she also points out that the

development of stereotypes can lead to situations in which self-filling prophecies rule

perceptions (2002).

This finding is also evidenced by studies of management styles in the workplace.

Stewart and Van der Lippe depict the varying ways in which men and women view their

opposite-gendered superior. Stewart compares the preferred management style of male

and females, stating that “Women feel a need to be involved with their subordinates while

men believe that good management entails not being involved in what their subordinates

are doing” (2001). However, Van der Lippe illustrates how men, although not taking part

or interfering, actively watch their subordinates’ proceedings, a practice that makes their
Allen/Murray Differences in Gender Communication:
LIS 650

female co-workers feel they aren’t trusted or viewed as competent workers (2001).

A final trend of the stereotype theme discusses ways to be aware of the presence

of stereotypes and how to avoid them. These are most often found in business tip sheets

and training manuals (Sanders, 2000) (Lieberman, 2000). Many of these recap the

observable behaviors discussed above in the verbal and non-verbal differences, yet aim to

educate co-workers in an attempt to maintain a harmonious day-to-day work environment

by avoiding gender conflicts and understanding them when they do occur.

Counter-effects

As mentioned above, the majority of the literature unveils a theme of discussion

in the communication difficulties that come about as a result of gender due to

stereotyping. However, a number of articles and studies indicate that there is another,

secondary, trend in gender stereotype discussion. Fuchs and Bovee, as representatives of

this counter-effect, discuss the situation of a male subordinate and a female supervisor.

Normally, as detailed in the review above, the female feels a need to build and maintain a

friendly or harmonious relationship with her male subordinates. Her use of language and

non-verbal communication bring about a response in the male of alienation due to a

perception of anxiety and incompetence. The reverse of this tendency, as Fuchs and

Bovee indicate, is for the female supervisor to “take on the qualities and mannerisms of a

man,” hoping to minimize the perception of incompetence (Fuchs, 2004). The results

they report are of considerable interest to both men and women: the female supervisor is

no longer viewed as incompetent, but rather is cold and unfeminine. As Bovee states, this

puts the women in management positions into a lose-lose situation (2000). Addressing

this predicament represents a growing section in training manuals and tip sheets.
Allen/Murray Differences in Gender Communication:
LIS 650

A Recent Trend: Computer Mediated Communication

A growing theme of discussion focuses on the possibility of reducing gender

differences by the utilization of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Many older

psychological studies, such as performed by Hulit, reveal that people cannot discern from

written text the gender of the author. The fad in the past few years was the assumption of

this application to such mediums as email or instant messaging.

However, the majority of current literature states that gender inequality is not
alleviated by CMC; indeed, one article by Postmes draws the opposite conclusion.

Postmes concludes the study by commenting “when unable to make clear individual

distinctions between group members, and unable to identify them as men or women,

gender differences were more accentuated than when such individual distinctions could

be made” (2002). Even those articles that do not make such strong statements about

CMC‘s failure to alleviate gender inequalities, such as Boneva and Savicki, postulate

reasons why CMC is no more or less helpful than traditional methods in assuaging gender

communication differences. Boneva explains that women tend to communicate more

than men, even when the medium is electronic, thus falling prey to the stereotype of

women being more “talkative” (2001). Savicki draws the opposite conclusion of Hulit,

stating the many linguistic speech patterns that differentiate males from females in face-

to-face conversation are present in electronic format, thus revealing the gender of the

“speaker” (2000). It will be interesting to note if there is a continuing trend toward

synthesizing the conflicting perspectives of this issue in the future.

Implications for Libraries

Conflicts in a work environment resulting from gender communication

differences can lead to strife between management levels and co-workers, affecting the

operation of the entire organization. This holds no less true in the field of library and

information science. Recognition of this leads to the final theme in the discussion of

gender differences in communication. Employment trends in recent years have indicated

greater numbers of men entering the library profession (Piper, 2001). They are doing so

at all levels of the organization, from reference librarians to administrators (Piper, 2001).

In what has traditionally been perceived as a “female” profession, this trend creates fertile
ground for communication conflicts and misunderstandings galore (Piper, 2001).

Administrators, managers, and co-workers should be kept knowledgeable of the current

literature pertaining to gender communication differences. They should also be exposed

to the training manuals and tip sheets offered from the realm of business administration in

order to better their awareness of these differences and the effects they can have on the

work environment. (Piper, 2001)

Conclusion

There are many different themes in the discussion of the subject of gender

communication differences, with each displaying various trends that fall under that

theme. The primary focus, logically, is on the verbal differences, followed by the

nonverbal behaviors that can exacerbate communication struggles. Out of these two

trends of discussion arise a third and fourth theme, those of the construction and

utilization of gender based stereotypes, and the counter-effects of stereotyping. Finally,

the impact of digitization reveals studies of computer-mediated communication and its

effect on gender inequality through communication to be a fifth major theme. All of

these themes of discussion represent subject areas where data will continue to be gathered

in support of or to refute those conclusions already given, and will continue to have
Allen/Murray Differences in Gender Communication:
LIS 650

lasting implications on the ways in which libraries are organized and managed.