This is a continuation of my examination of the factors cited in the New York Times that may pose barriers for women aspiring to rise to partnerships in major law firms:
3) ABITRARY MALE CONTROL OF KEY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES. This one caught my attention since I have never served, or been asked to serve, on a law firm management committee. The article did not cite any studies or statistics regarding whether women are asked to serve on law firm management committees to the same degree as men. At my last firm, however, one of the junior male associates told me that he thought it was odd that he was asked to serve on a committee while the very competent female associate who started at the same time he did was not asked. Of course, I remember thinking, "Well, yeah, but you're just on the library committee." On the other hand, I was never on any committees either and most of my male colleagues were. I never really sat down and figured out who was on what committees, but it's possible this guy was on to something. My plan at my current firm is to spend some time figuring out what committee would be desirable for me in terms of my talents and in terms of advancement within the firm, and then towards the end of the year lobby to be on that committee.
4) ISOLATION. One source quoted in the New York Times article noted "how lonely life at a law firm can feel for women if they stay on the partnership track and find fewer women around them as they ascend." This source, who has since adjusted to life at her firm after establishing a thriving environmental law practice said, "I saw other women arrive at the firm, struggle, and leave . . . I never felt like I belonged." This is another area where I think being able to develop strong inter-personal relationships with male colleagues is important. I don't mean to put the onus entirely on women here either. I think that professional men have a moral obligation to make sure that their female colleagues feel welcomed into the fold! (Or vice-versa in female-dominated professions!) It also makes good business sense for professional men -- since you never know when your colleagues, whether male or female, will be in a position to help you professionally.
Women attorneys were very much a minority at my last firm, but I never felt isolated. I worked with a great group of guys whom I still see regularly for lunch. That having been said, it occurs to me that it is not at all a bad thing for women who are in the minority to reach out to each other. At my last firm, the most senior woman in the firm took the initiative every quarter or every six months or so to get all the women attorneys together for lunch. I thought that worked out very well -- but I would caution against women "clumping together" all the time, a phenomenon I have noted in my current firm and have described here.
5) SUBTLE BIASES AGAINST WOMEN. Another source in the article observed, "Women are held to higher standards, and if they don't jump up and down like a man would at a meeting they aren't seen as partnership material." While I don't think I have necessarily seen or experienced this at either of my law firms, it rings true to me. If a woman attorney behaves in a stereotypically feminine way (like speaking softly, or sounding hesitant), I can imagine people leaping to the conclusion quite quickly that she doesn't have the chops to be an "aggressive" litigator because her demeanor may seem to reaffirm pre-existing beliefs about women in general. Of course, that kind of bias ignores the fact that being an "aggressive" litigator doesn't necessarily mean being a loud, in-your-face kind of personality. In the best sense, aggressive litigation is more about being very prepared, being strategically aggressive, and never shying away from trying a case if necessary. The problem is that even good lawyers may still equate an aggressive demeanor with being an aggressive litigator.
On the other hand, it's hard to parse out because I can imagine a quiet and diffident guy having problems too. On the third hand, women may be more likely to be quiet and diffident due to socialization and cultural expectations and a woman's quietness and diffidence is more likely to reinforce ingrained beliefs about women's essential nature.
I have no way of really knowing, but I think I may have experienced that kind of subtle gender bias in my first job as a prosecutor when I got fired. That first year when I didn't know which way was up in a courtroom, I am sure that I came off as timid and I think that apparent timidity probably made me seem "girly" in a way that didn't go over well with my male boss. The fact that I actually was getting results in some tough cases was not enough to counteract the deadly effect of my quiet demeanor. On the other hand, except for my male boss, all the other lawyers in the office were women --but they were all macho, gunslinging women, or women who had established their professional competence before coming to this particular office.
I like to think that over the past eight years, I have developed a professional persona that is both assertive but not off-putting. That can be a delicate balancing act for anyone but I think it can be a trickier proposition for women due to both internalized beliefs and external expectations. Ideally a good professional persona requires a matter-of-fact willingness to state what one's needs and desires are and a refusal to compromise on the important things combined with reasonableness and a friendly (but not puppy-dog friendly) demeanor.
6) THE MATERNAL WALL. The maternal wall is bad, bad news in my book. The maternal wall refers to the assumption that mothers will be less willing to work hard than men or than childless women. Nicole Black has observed in the comments on this site that a woman who leaves early to care for a sick child is viewed far less generously than a man who leaves early to play golf.
Personally, as a childless woman, I have not had any direct experience with the maternal wall. Tellingly enough, at my last firm, the 22 male lawyers all had kids, whereas the 8 female lawyers were all married but childless. I had a conniption at that firm when I discovered that the firm had a "maternity leave" policy but no "paternity leave" policy. I had a second conniption when the partners looked at me like I had three heads when I said there needed to be a "paternity leave" policy. Fortunately, they came around and adopted a paternity leave policy that was identical to the maternity leave policy. (I should note that I didn't actually have a conniption in front of the partners. In my capacity as an employment law advisor, I merely pointed out the potential discrimination claims that could arise from having an unequal leave policy.)
At my current firm, there are plenty of lawyers who are also mothers, but I have not been here long enough to get a sense as to whether there is a bias against them. The president of my firm is herself a mother, although she took several years off when her children were young.
7) SELF-PROMOTION. I think this is another biggie. For whatever reason, most likely to do with socialization from earliest childhood, women in general seem to be more reluctant to tout their accomplishments and to make demands than men are. I have already written at length about this here. I think this general truth (backed up by at least one study) leads to a stereotype that makes it harder for even assertive women to negotiate salaries or partnerships. If women are believed to be likely to accept what is offered without negotiating, then the incentive is to offer women less rather than more in the first instance, and then to stonewall attempts at negotiation.
For me, it has taken a conscious effort and a lot of practice to get used to promoting myself. Now I positively enjoy it. I have no trouble informing or reminding a higher-up that I have tried a lot of difficult cases or that I have won important motions for summary judgment or what have you. Heck, I'll even bring it up when I am speaking at a seminar. It was harder for me to learn to ask for more money in salary negotiations but I was very glad during my last job switch that I forced myself to do it.
I am not sure what the solution to this is other than trying to go against the grain on individual level. I think one possibly beneficial step might be to teach students of both sexes at the high school, college, or graduate school levels how to most effectively conduct themselves in the business world. It is crucial to know how to strike that balance between being too diffident and too overbearing.
Alright -- next up for tomorrow's installment, the real biggie: BILLABLE HOURS! (Thunder clap!) Stay tuned for more!
Thanks for the overview, Happy. One question: I note that you describe the other women in your first job as "gun-slingers" and later refer to your own style as "assertive, but not off-putting". I'm just curious whether these women were seen by you or others as unfeminine because their assertiveness took a more classically "male" type. Are you elevating your form of "non-offputting" assertiveness over theirs? I'm not disagreeing per se about the benefits of an approach that gets things accomplished without being unnecessarily agressive, but I'm wondering how much you've internalized the need to be "nice" such that you are critiquing "less-nice" forms of female assertiveness?? Or are you merely criticizing the fact that your first boss only seemed to appreciate the male form of assertiveness??
On another note, the need for self-promotion is huge. I'm battling it right now b/c I need/should/want to ask my boss for a promotion to the next attorney level (its very structured in my agency) and I keep struggling with how to present my case (for advancement) and waiting "just until I get the opinion back in the X case - if I win THAT one, then I'll go ask him." Ack. I need to just DO it!!
Looking forward to the third installment . . .
Posted by: j0 | March 21, 2006 at 09:50 PM
What a great question! I should clarify that I don't consider a "macho, gunslinging style" to be particular masculine or feminine since I have seen plenty of lawyers of both sexes who use this style. I find this "macho, gunslinging style" problematic whether I see it in men or women.
What I mean by "macho and gunslinging" is a style that is opposed to giving reasoned responses to things that come up in litigation. The example I gave in one of my prior posts was the habit of a lot of my prior colleagues saying to me, "Tell the defense attorney to pound sand!" even if they didn't necessarily have a legally sound basis to tell the defense attorney to pound sand and even if they didn't have a good reason for doing so. In sum, I guess what I mean by "macho and gunslinging" is a habit of being aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive. It's being aggressive just to "one up" the other side rather than to achieve something for your client or, if your a prosecutor, for your victim or for the public good.
Being assertive, however, is about standing up on issues that you have determined are important and valuable to you or important and valuable to your client's interests.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | March 21, 2006 at 10:34 PM
I think that professional men have a moral obligation to make sure that their female colleagues feel welcomed into the fold! (Or vice-versa in female-dominated professions!)
I'm new to your blog, and just wanted to thank you for your continuing recognition of the 'two way street' of gender relationships. Not all of your compatriots are so inclined, and it makes you a 'much stronger witness'.
Posted by: ballgame | March 22, 2006 at 12:41 AM
I dunno, ballgame. I can't and won't try to speak for every feminist out there, but my sense is that feminists do very much view gender relationships as a two-way street, even if our emphasis is on issues that tend to adversely affect women. That having been said, thank you for the positive feedback!
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | March 22, 2006 at 07:49 AM
Thanks for the reference, H. You should check out Carolyn Elefant's comments on the article at My Shingle and at Legal Blog Watch. She's got an interesting perspective. I also liked Jeremmy Blachman's point the it's strange of the femalw partner in the article to be proud of the fact that "at least one" parent usually made it home for dinner. I thought the same thing when I read the article. That woman's perspective has been completely skewed by her experiences as a women partner.
As for negative female stereotyping, it's not just limited to "timid" or the like. I know one person, a very competent and assertive attorney, who only received one negative comment at the last annual review before she left the firm (prior to that she'd never had a negative comment of any sort). She was told that they'd noticed that she was a bit of a pessimist and "whined" a bit. Do you think that that sort of comment would have ever been made to a man? Not bloody likely.
Posted by: Nicole Black | March 22, 2006 at 08:09 AM
Oh, and I probably should have added that my friend then ran around like a maniac buying books on optimism, trying to "change her attitude" and telling all the partners about her efforts until she realized that the partner that told her that was one of the most pessimistic people she'd ever met.
And, ironically, it was those books on optimism that made her realize that in most of her life she was fairly realistic, but, in the context of her job, she was actually a bit pessimistic, all things considered, and it was likely a correct assessment, albeit sexist and innapropriate (especially given that the pessismism was then written off in part by the reviewing partner as possibiy related to her pregnancy), in light of the absolute lack of other substantive criticisms. As she pondered why she'd be more pessimistic in her job than in the rest of her life, she realized that she disliked her job immensely. She quit shortly thereafter. Best decision of her life.
Posted by: Nicole Black | March 22, 2006 at 08:34 AM
Oh, and check out Opinionistas.com . Her comment is right on. I haven't been a huge fan of her latest line of posts, but this one is perfect.
Posted by: Nicole Black | March 22, 2006 at 08:59 AM
Thanks for the clarification HF. I definitely agree that the "agressive for the sake of being aggressive" type of attorney is not useful - and often harmful to said attorney's client's interests.
Posted by: j0 | March 22, 2006 at 09:46 AM
You're dead on Nicole. I have only just had a chance to glance at opinionistas take-- but it looks like she beat me to the punch. My part 3 of this series was going to be what I think is hands down the crucial factor -- the dehumanizing aspects of billable hours and how those are more likely to lead women to leave law firm life.
And boy do billable hours suck royally, lemme tell ya.
Posted by: The Happy Feminist | March 22, 2006 at 10:41 AM
What's with lawyers and pounding sand? I've never heard anyone who WASN'T a lawyer use that phrase!
Posted by: Ann | March 22, 2006 at 01:05 PM