Here's an interesting article.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/worklife/08/02/angry.men.women.reut/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Workplace anger -- who wins?

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A man who gets angry at work may well be admired for it but a woman who shows anger in the workplace is liable to be seen as "out of control" and incompetent, according to a new study presented Friday.

What's more, the finding may have implications for Hillary Clinton as she attempts to become the first female U.S. president, according to its author Victoria Brescoll, a post-doctoral scholar at Yale University.

Her research paper "When Can Angry Women Get Ahead?" noted that Clinton was described last year by a leading Republican as "too angry to be elected president."

Previous research has indicated that anger can communicate that an individual feels entitled to dominate others, and therefore perhaps is. But Brescoll said such studies focused on men.

"As Senator Clinton's experience suggests, however, for a professional woman anger expression may lead to a decrease rather than an increase in her status," Brescoll wrote.

She conducted three tests in which men and women recruited randomly watched videos of a job interview and were asked to rate the applicant's status and assign them a salary.

In the first, the scripts were identical except where the candidate described feeling either angry or sad about losing an account due to a colleague's late arrival at a meeting.

Participants conferred the most status on the man who said he was angry, the second most on the woman who said she was sad, slightly less on the man who said he was sad, and least of all by a sizable margin on the woman who said she was angry.

Salary gap

The average salary assigned to the angry man was almost $38,000 compared to about $23,500 for the angry woman and in the region of $30,000 for the other two candidates.

In a second experiment, the script was similar except that the job applicant also described his or her current occupation as a trainee or a senior executive.

"Participants rated the angry female CEO as significantly less competent than all of the other targets, including even the angry female trainee," Brescoll wrote. She said they viewed angry females as significantly more "out of control."

That impacted salaries. Unemotional women were assigned on average $55,384 compared to $32,902 for the angry ones. Male executive candidates were assigned more than trainees, regardless of anger, with an average $73,643.

A third experiment tested whether a good reason for anger made any difference. The script was changed so that some angry candidates explained that the co-worker who arrived late had lied beforehand, indicating he had directions to the meeting.

Sure enough, the angry woman with a good reason to be angry was awarded a much higher salary than the angry woman who provided no excuse, though it was still less than the men.

The study, to be presented this weekend at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, a research and teaching organization with nearly 17,000 members, found similar attitudes to anger among male and female participants.

"It's an attitude that is not conscious," Brescoll said. "People are hardly aware of it."

Brescoll said the findings revealed a "difficult paradox" for professional women -- while anger can serve as a powerful tool to achieve status at work, women may have to behave calmly in order to be seen as rational

This is kinda off, but we were talking about all the candidates and who we would choose. I thought, at this point what the Hell, how about hillary it can't be much worse, and she is a pretty headstrong intelligent politician right?

So then it was pointed out to me that a woman could never, and would never make it because they said...

"You're a woman, and your house is burning down, your children are inside. Simultaneously(sp) the local school is burning down with hundreds of children inside...so who do you save first? Your own children, or the school full of children."

I said pppffft like that would happen blahblah..they say no serious..what would you choose, I said my own, first anyway, as I would delegate the rescue of the others--nice answer right?. :excuseme: I guess that's BAD.

So I was informed "See now, Men see numbers, the big picture, the mass and what's good for the whole, women are too emotional and cannot make a choice like that"

Hmmm...although I didn't see how this portrays real life, he had a point, although I'm a woman, and I wouldn't hesitate to engage in a war, almost certainly loose lives of soldiers and bystanders of war, so should it be necessary if that's what he meant by that. who knows, I wouldn't want to be President that's for sure.

As we've discussed in another recent thread, it's hard to make blanket statements about either gender because there are always going to be individuals who are exceptions. Plus, while there may be some traits that many or even most women share, they are as often strengths as they are weaknesses. Heeding emotions could be a boon in many situations.

I'd save my own children. I also think ALL men would save their own children FIRST!!! What kind of parent would you be to make that kind of decision to let your children burn? That's absolute craziness, and I defy ANY MAN to sit there and tell me he'd abadon his kids to rescue the school kids down the street!!!!!!!!!

The children at the school have their OWN parents, the teachers and others to help them.

Heeding emotions could be a boon in many situations.

Yeah thats a point.

I'm not trying to be racist or sexist, but I don't think the country is ready for a black or female president. I'm looking at the country as a WHOLE!

^^^ That's what I said, but reason with a serious politic crazy man, who just might sacrifice his own for the mass, is not one with which I cared to engage in. I think he was just trying to make me see that women are basically to sissy? to make a man? desicion because we don't want to hurt anyones feelings and save the dolphins? LOL

^^^ That's what I said, but reason with a serious politic crazy man, who just might sacrifice his own for the mass, is not one with which I cared to engage in. I think he was just trying to make me see that women are basically to sissy? to make a man? desicion because we don't want to hurt anyones feelings and save the dolphins? LOL

I'm not sure why you gave this guy's opinion so much weight. A "serious politic crazy man" wouldn't be someone who would be a very good candidate for much of anything.

Not sure what you mean by "too sissy to make a man," but I very much disagree that women are "sissy." Despite the very few historical examples of women in positions of power, women did very un-sissy like things from the dawn of time to save and provide for their families.

too sissy to make a man decision. I think is what he was trying to make me see as his opinion. I was humored by his suggestion, so I sometimes like to engage in conversation with crazy people as if I really am interested in what they are saying.. OOh really? Oh how interesting? Oh so you think we should huh? I never saw it that way. So your telling me now, that Hillary is only there because of Bill, ah I see and you truley believe she is in it for money..wow unhuh, that's just weird you know...Yes yes, Obama would be a better candidate, I would much rather a Muslim than a woman....Hot Dog! Gotta Go! lol

I defy ANY MAN to sit there and tell me he'd abadon his kids to rescue the school kids down the street!!!!!!!!!

i agree 100%.

i think the world would be better off with more women in positions of political power. if you're making generalizations, men seem 'in general' to be a little too eager to engage in manly pursuits like starting wars over some unimportant pissing match.

otoh, i don't really care if the world ends in nuclear flames. i'm much more concerned about whether i can ride my dirtbike. i think a hillary regime is likely to be more anti-dirtbike than some of the other possibilities. of course almost all politicians are anti-dirtbike, or at least not actively pro-dirtbike, since we as dirtbikers are too lazy and selfish to get involved, and we keep voting on the basis of totally stupid and meaningless things like abortion rights, sexual equality, war, taxes, capital punishment, immigration, and other nerdy nonsense.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now