Yahoo Finance ‘Nice’ women finish last: being assertive linked to higher wages
While many feminists may still be coming to grips with Hillary Clinton’s loss in the U.S. election to president-elect Donald Trump earlier this month, they may be able to take solace in the fact that so-called “nasty women” like Clinton get paid more than their “nice” peers.
The real estate mogul’s comment during the third debate that Clinton was a “nasty woman” sparked a conversation on social media about how successful women often become the target of misogyny, while men who display the same traits are showered with praise.
In the face of this prejudice, new research published in the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology shows that it is these women who are dominant and assertive, traits that are traditionally tied to masculinity, are more likely to earn higher wages, though, still less so than their like-minded male peers.
“Dominant women were not punished for reflecting such female-incongruent traits as extroversion and assertiveness,” Renee De Reuver, one of the study’s authors and professor at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, said in a press release.
“In fact, we found that the more dominant a woman is at work, the less likely she is to be status-detracted. We found a similar pattern among men — the more dominant a man is, the more likely he is to be better compensated, but, alarmingly, dominant women were still found to earn less than even the most agreeable men who aren’t promoted.”
The study surveyed 375 men and women at a Dutch multinational electronics company that employs nearly 1,400 staff. Participants were randomly selected across the firm’s 12 departments.
Researchers then analyzed workers’ tenure, education and performance data relative to their income and promotions. They also examined how the employees perceived their fit within the company in terms of education, experience and performance, on one hand, as well as income and rank.
The study found that female employees were being compensated less than their male counterparts “across the board,” and they were putting more of themselves into their positions than they received.
However, women who were dominant, assertive, expressed their expectations and didn’t back down from demands, were better compensated than their “nice” female colleagues.
“We have witnessed dramatic changes in the definition of traditionally male and female qualities over the past several decades. But some people still really cling to the idea that some qualities are exclusively male and exclusively female,” said Sharon Toker, co-author and professor at Tel Aviv University in Israel.
“Some professional women are still afraid to exhibit a trait that’s incongruent with presumed notions of female character. The result is financial retribution.”
Michael Biron, one of the study’s authors and professor at the University of Haifa in Israel, said that these “nice” women didn’t know that their personality was holding them back.
“We found that women aren’t aware that more agreeable women are being punished for being nice,” said Biron.
In fact, nearly all participants said they felt dissatisfied by their work-to-compensation ration, except for the more agreeable and nicer women who said they earned too much.
“This blew our minds,” said Toker.
“The data shows that they earn the least — far less than what they deserve. And they rationalize the situation, making it less likely that they will make appropriate demands for equal pay.”
So maybe it’s time more people, not just women, took a page from Clinton’s book and channel their inner “nasty.”
