Verified by 
Patriarchal systems have dictated that men make the decisions in society and hold the positions of power and authority and are considered superior. Men are the rule-makers and women are the rule-followers. She is never allowed to questions his authority and if she does, there is a price to pay. Sounds like some antiquated idea that really doesn’t have a place in today’s work world. Think again. These biases still rule and are enacted daily.
The key underlying notion is reflective of traditional sex roles, which are restrictive of both women and men. It is socially appropriate for employees to question a woman’s authority and blindly follow a man. Power and powerful positions have most often been associated with men as opposed to women. Historically, whether we consider the poor representation of women as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or Congress, power has been distributed among the sexes disparately. People tend to think of men as people who are masterful, assertive, and in charge. They think of women as communal, as individuals who are approachable, nice, friendly, and caring. We think of leaders as being more masterful than communal, demonstrating assertiveness, competitiveness, independence, and task orientation.
Tonia Jacobi, professor of law at Northwestern Pritzker Law School, and Dylan Schweers, lawyer with Goodwin Law Firm, conducted an empirical study that revealed male justices interrupt the female justices approximately three times more often than they interrupt each other during oral arguments in court. They examined the transcripts of fifteen years of Supreme Court oral arguments, finding that women did not have an equal opportunity to be heard on the highest court in the land.
In fact, as more women join the court, the reaction of the male justices has been to increase their interruptions of the female justices. Many male justices are now interrupting female justices at double-digit rates per term, but the reverse is almost never true. In the last twelve years, during which women made up on average twenty-four percent of the bench, thirty-two percent of interruptions were of the female justices, but only four percent were by the female justices. Who could be in a more authoritative role than a Supreme Court justice? They have the Ivy League credentials and sit on the highest court, yet their authority and opinion is relegated to constant interruptions.
Past research in linguistics has shown that women are routinely interrupted by men, in one-on-one conversations or in groups, at work or in social situations. Interruptions are attempts at dominance and control, and so the more powerful a woman becomes, the less often she should be interrupted. Yet even though Supreme Court justices are some of the most powerful and authoritative individuals in the country, female justices find themselves consistently interrupted not only by their male colleagues but also by their subordinates: the male advocates who are attempting to persuade them.
We can learn from the female justices who have gradually left behind the polite forms of speech and phrasing. This serves as an example and case study of an adaptive function to increase their authoritative power and influence. Jacobi and Schweers found consistent gendered patterns and that, over time, the female justices changed their behavior to be heard and assert their authority:
“Length of tenure does matter in one particular respect: Time on the court gives women a chance to learn how to avoid being interrupted—by talking more like men. Early in their tenure, female justices tend to frame questions politely, using prefatory words such as ‘May I ask,’ ‘Can I ask,’ ‘Excuse me,’ or the advocate’s name. This provides an opportunity for another justice to jump in before the speaker gets to the substance of her question.”
There is both a double standard and double bind operating for women. The double standard requires women to demonstrate they can take charge, which is seldom an issue for men; it is assumed. The double bind is the pushback women receive when they step up to the plate and takes charge. They are accused of coming off to strong and tough. In the case of the female Supreme Court justices, they had to act like men and employ similar linguistics styles in order to be heard.
How is a woman to remedy her outsider status from the cultural norm? A woman needs to come to terms with her fragile sense of self as a leader. She must make a fundamental identity shift. Although her organization conducts leadership training, implements mentoring programs, and actively attempts to level the playing field in recruitment and retention, it is not enough.
Becoming a leader involves more than being put into a leadership position. There is a saying: “Fake it until you make it.” It would be more productive for her to “fake it until she becomes it.” She has to internalize a leadership identity by taking on meaningful projects, calling critical meetings, and questioning long-held practices that don’t serve her organization. People may approve or disapprove of her actions and therefore either encourage or discourage subsequent assertions. As her ability to step outside her comfort zone grows, her capabilities grow; she has to be bold and take a chance.
Making friends with unfamiliar behaviors is like learning to ride a bike. You feel shaky at first, fall off and get back on the bike for another try. Women’s leadership identity may begin on shaky grounds and the process may feel tentative, but if she has the determination and patience to experiment with new behaviors, the old questioning and self-doubt eventually withers away. Eventually, she can gain a reputation as a high-potential leader.
