I think this is an outgrowth of our general social tendency to judge men by what they do ("he works at a hedge fund!") and women by what they're like ("she's really sweet!").
I found this paragraph in particular interesting:
> Words like bossy, abrasive, strident, and aggressive are used to describe women’s behaviors when they lead . . . . Among these words, only aggressive shows up in men’s reviews at all. It shows up three times, twice with an exhortation to be more of it.
My current boss told me after I got hired that he liked me at my interview because I came across as aggressive. It's a personality trait that works great for men, because we're given a wide latitude between "aggressive behavior" and "abrasive" behavior. To a certain extent, we correlate a certain level of aggressiveness, credit-taking, and talking over others with leadership potential. But it seems for women, such behavior can result in being told: "Sometimes you need to step back to let others shine."
I have a pet theory that the reason that women (as well as non-traditionally-masculine men) are considered bossy, while other men are considered "go-getters" is due to a lack of the threat of violence. Not that a type-A guy is going to assault you if you don't capitulate to their authority. More that there is a perceived or possible threat.
In contrast to women who would be considered bossy or abrasive because they don't "back up" their claims to authority. I suppose that there is often a feeling of resentment that society/culture/custom is taking the place of that threat.
Again, all supposition and musing on my part. Probably much better articulated by someone writing on the subject 50 years ago!
I've never heard this but the idea seems compelling!
Another way to describe it might be as a mismatch between the pecking order according to our simian brains and what's on the org chart. I.e. we don't resent bossy behavior by someone we perceive as a dominant alpha, but bristle when it's someone we see as below us in the "pack".
This is an interesting point. We often observe a backlash against those who claim authority but don't deserve it (whether from being new, smaller, weaker, less skilled--lower on whatever status criteria is established in the group). In the case with masculine men, there might be a subconscious acceptance of their claim to authority, whereas with a woman there is a subconscious resentment towards their claim.
Right, but to be clear: I don't believe that only masculine men deserve authority. I think our species' slow evolution from violence as the single source of authority is possibly the most hopeful development in our history.
But if you remove the other advantages/disadvantages of being female/male, and just ask someone: "Would you rather be judged on your profession/career or personality/behavior?", I think most rational people would pick the latter.
I found this paragraph in particular interesting:
> Words like bossy, abrasive, strident, and aggressive are used to describe women’s behaviors when they lead . . . . Among these words, only aggressive shows up in men’s reviews at all. It shows up three times, twice with an exhortation to be more of it.
My current boss told me after I got hired that he liked me at my interview because I came across as aggressive. It's a personality trait that works great for men, because we're given a wide latitude between "aggressive behavior" and "abrasive" behavior. To a certain extent, we correlate a certain level of aggressiveness, credit-taking, and talking over others with leadership potential. But it seems for women, such behavior can result in being told: "Sometimes you need to step back to let others shine."