The Elephant in the Room: Using Brain Science to Enhance Working Relationships

| Posted by Diana Larsen Follow 0 Followers , Sharon Buckmaster Follow 0 Followers on Oct 29, 2009. Estimated reading time: 15 minutes |


Fusing data generated by current research in social neuroscience, positive psychology, and advanced imaging techniques, the new brain science knowledge that results gives us tools for understanding and enhancing the ability of men and women to work together. Taken together, this information is becoming known as gender intelligence and is being adopted by many progressive organizations. Companies like Deloitte & Touche, IBM, and PriceWaterHouse Coopers have seen immediate financial results including increased retention of women by training their managers to use gender intelligence in the workplace. Using the principles of brain science particularly with respect to gender differences can have a positive impact on Agile teams, corporate culture and organizational success.

What’s All the Fuss About Anyway?

It seems that everywhere we look these days, there are articles describing the implications of new research findings about the brain. From the pages of the N.Y. Times to Harvard Business Review to Fast Company, scientists are providing us with tantalizing new information that challenges much of what we thought we knew about what makes us tick and why we interact with others the ways we do. A few years ago, Dr. Eric Kandel, the 2000 Nobel Prize winner for biochemistry said in a speech that this research is clearly the new frontier in medicine and science, likely to vastly alter and also improve our understanding of individuals and society. We focus here on three of those research streams most relevant to people as members of organizational systems: social neuroscience, positive psychology, and imaging technology.

Briefly, we can describe these three areas in the following way:

Social neuroscience is the study of what happens in the brain when people interact. Daniel Goleman, perhaps best-known for his work on emotional intelligence, has developed an idea he calls “social intelligence “. Whereas emotional intelligence is primarily an intrapersonal process, social intelligence is an interpersonal one. According to Goleman, people are “wired to connect” with the result that we are inexorably drawn into an intimate brain-to-brain linkup whenever we engage with another person. That neural bridge lets us affect the brain—and therefore the body—of everyone we interact with, just as they do us. This neurological dance stimulates our nervous systems, affecting hormones, heart rate, circulation, breathing and the immune system. Goleman describes the relevant neural pathways, including the thalamus and amygdala, which together regulate sensory and arousal stimuli. He speaks of spindle cells, which rapidly process social decisions; of mirror neurons, which sense another’s movements; of dopamine neurons, which react to pleasure-inducing neurotransmitters that flow freely while two lovers gaze.

Positive psychology is a new branch of psychology focused on the study of well-being and the enrichment of human life. Researchers such as Dr. Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia have been studying the chemical and hormonal responses generated by witnessing acts of moral courage and inspired behavior. Dr. Barbara Fredrickson at the University of North Carolina has discovered that experiencing positive emotions in a 3-to-1 ratio with negative ones leads people to a tipping point beyond which they naturally become more resilient to adversity and can achieve what they once could only imagine.

Imaging technology is the world of functional MRI’s (fMRI), positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, SPECT scans, and other non-invasive brain-imaging technology that allows us to see inside the human brain in real time while it is solving a problem, experiencing emotion, or establishing trust with another person. Differences between men and women have been clearly documented in structural, chemical/hormonal, and functional areas. Researchers such as Daniel Amen, Michael Gurian and Barbara Amis have developed ideas commonly called “gender intelligence” to describe the likely impact of these differences on behavior.

Why Does “Gender Intelligence” Matter in Organizations?

Women have succeeded now at every organizational level and currently occupy just over 50% of the management and professional/tech roles according to 2007 data from Catalyst, a leading research and advocacy group for women in the workplace. Despite that progress, at current rates it will take more than 47 years for women to achieve parity in executive level, or “C-suite” jobs. Clearly, the idea touted in the 1970s that simply having talented women “in the pipeline” would lead to gender equity, has proved inadequate. Numerous studies such as Harvard Business Review’s recent The Athena Factor, report that many women leave organization life because of hostile work environments and extreme job pressures. Ineffective communications, influenced in part by gender differences, can contribute to perceptions of discomfort that result in a decision to leave the organization. As retention rates fall, recruitment and retraining costs rise. After training its managers in brain-based gender differences, Deloitte & Touche saw such immediate improvement in retention rates that the company estimated it saved $250 million dollars.

In addition, numerous academic and industry studies have documented high exit rates for women from the IT arena contributing to difficulties in filling roughly 500,000 information technology jobs nationally. Contrary to popular belief, there is now an ample supply of women graduating universities with degrees in the science, technology, and engineering (SET) fields. With more than 50% of the current US SET workforce approaching retirement age, organizations must examine strategies to address the workplace conditions that attract capable women and men, and increase the likelihood of their continued employment. Gender intelligence is one key tool that we can utilize.

Why Does “Gender Intelligence” Matter for Agile Teams & Enterprises?

Though no studies have been conducted, empirical and anecdotal evidence indicates that the Agile emphases on quality of work life, including collaborative work environment, strong relationships, cross-functionality, and sustainable pace, attracts a greater number of women to Agile projects and teams. Attendees comment on the greater proportion of women at Agile-focused conferences compared to general software conferences, “where there’s never a line in the ladies room.”

Quality of work life may attract women to Agile. Attracting women is one thing, keeping them is quite another. Everyone wants to know his or her contributions to the work is valued by others on the team. However, often the ways that women contribute doesn’t receive recognition for the value it adds in the same way that men’s contributions do.

Recently we heard a senior male developer comment, “[We look for] strong leadership in practice…” In fact, he may hold high value for male-oriented practice leadership, such as thought leadership expressed through strenuously defending ideas that matter in blogs, writing and promoting books to assert thought leadership, or aggressively, even confrontationally, protecting high standards of craftsmanship. This exists o the extent that some software communities have asked themselves the question, “Why are we so mean?”

The developer and his colleagues may overlook or not see the value in other kinds of practice leadership, like being the organizational glue that holds conference planning teams together or co-authoring articles with a variety of colleagues—a different kind of servant leadership for the practice area.

In addition, members of male-dominated professions like software development, may consciously or unconsciously objectify female colleagues in ways that cross lines of courtesy and diminish the chance for effective work relationship. This can lead to extreme examples like the web-based attacks on women bloggers or on women who dared to speak out against a conference keynote that relegated women to body parts. The very existence of such situations can color interactions between male and female team members, so that women work in a “field” of hyper-vigilance not experienced by their male colleagues.

Efforts at keeping effective teams together will benefit from a broader understanding of gender intelligence among leaders and team members. In addition, gender intelligence provides one more set of skills to increase the flow of communication and feedback – the lifeblood of Agile projects.

So, how are our brains different?

Significant differences exist between male and female brains in three areas. These are in actual structures of the brain, in the amount of neural blood flow, and in brain chemistry. Here are some of the key findings about the ways in which men and women’s brains differ:

  • IQ tests of general intelligence show no overall difference…the difference shows up in different kinds of intelligence.
  • Male brains show frequent rest periods i.e., “not thinking about anything”. This happens many times a day. Women’s brains do not do this except during sleep. Women often interpret this difference incorrectly as “withholding” behavior or a desire not to share.
  • Male brains have 6.5X more gray matter. Gray matter serves as information processing centers. This localization drives focus, focus, focus. Females have 10x the amount of white matter, contributing to connectivity between the information centers, permitting more multi-tasking, more language facility, and faster emotional “processing”.
  • Males have more M ganglion in the retina allowing men to perceive objects moving in space more easily. Women have more P ganglion allowing them to see color and fine detail.
  • The hippocampus in men is less active, contributing to less linkage between memory and the emotional/word centers of the brain. Men will often not recall emotional discussions (positive or negative ones) whereas women will often have detailed recall.
  • The amygdala in men tends to be larger. When angry, the verbal circuits in men tend to shut down with the amygdala driving towards more physical expression of the emotion rather than the verbal processing exhibited by females.
  • Men have 20X more testosterone and also have vasopressin. Both decrease interest in talking and increase aggression, need for social power, competitiveness, and territoriality. These hormones were essential in an agrarian society for successful hunting. Testosterone rises and dips during the day, generally peaking at roughly 9-11 AM. Some research studies of British financial traders have shown that the riskiest trades tend to occur during that time period.
  • Women have more oxytocin, sometimes called the “tend and befriend” hormone. Oxytocin promotes the personal bonding useful for building community and raising children, which are inherently social tasks performed over extended periods of time.
  • In women’s brains, language tends to occur in both the right and left hemispheres, whereas in men language tends to occur only in the left. If you account for writing, speaking, and reading, women use significantly more words in a day than men.
  • The cerebellum in men tends to be larger than in a female brain. The cerebellum is an action and physical movement center, contributing to the male’s tendency to action and physicality.
  • Women have 20% more blood flow throughout the brain. In the limbic system, one of the consequences of this increased blood flow is that women are constantly assessing and reassessing context as well as facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. Disorders that inhibit people from picking up on social nuance such as autism and Asperger’s Syndrome are roughly 8X more common in males.
  • Baby girls have as much estrogen in the brain as an adult woman. Estrogen is such a potent neurotransmitter that in the first three months of life, a baby girl increases eye contact and facial gazing skills 400% more than boys. This ability to read faces is an advantage females maintain over males throughout life. LouAnn Brizendine, author of The Female Brain, refers to the female brain as “a machine built for connection” in part due to this ability.

Do we have to be A or B?

Actually, one in seven men and one in five women have what we call “bridge brains”. These are people who have somewhat more of the other sex’s features in terms of their brain profile. A bridge brain man for example might take fewer physical risks than many of his peers, he might avoid a highly competitive type of profession, he might be drawn to less aggressive types of sports, etc.

Cognitive science tells us the brain is capable of change via focus or what David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz in their work on the neuroscience of leadership call “attention density”. However, while the topic of plasticity in the brain has received a lot of attention recently, some aspects of brain functioning are not as amenable to change because they are hardwired. Nowhere is this truer than in gender-based brain differences. Nurture matters but it does not trump nature. It’s more useful to think in terms of the areas of the brain that have high versus low plasticity. An example of high plasticity would be the number of languages you can learn to speak. An example of low plasticity is the fact that women have more prolactin, which produces larger tear glands and in turn, more tears.

Organizational Implications

Once people understand some of the basic differences, they tend to look at everyday situations in organizations somewhat differently. Women (and some men) who use a lot of words may become more attuned to that “glazed-over” look from men they are speaking to who think they have already gotten the point. Men may begin to appreciate how women use their relational skills to build consensus and mend fences after controversy.

As an example, take a very difficult meeting between an architect and a lead developer that becomes quite heated. The stress of conflict causes cortisol levels to rise, producing more testosterone in males and more aggressive, dominant behavior. In females, the rise in cortisol produces more oxytocin, leading to more harmony-seeking behavior. A “winning” strategy where both meeting participants feel good about the final decision will provide the best outcome, even if it takes longer to get there.

Managers, coaches and team members who understand some of the basic brain differences can adapt their style of interaction with members of the opposite sex as appropriate. Let’s say a female Agile coach has a very angry male developer in her office. He is totally frustrated with other members of his team. If the coach reacts the way a woman is more likely to react to another woman saying, “I can see how frustrated you are. Let’s go get some coffee and tell me how you’re feeling…,” we shouldn’t be surprised if the fellow gets really upset and even more frustrated. Instead, the “gender intelligent” female coach could offer action steps to the male developer like, “Let’s make a list of the things you’ve already tried, then generate some alternatives you can implement right away”.

Perhaps subsequently, the coach can pursue the developer’s “feelings” about the situation. However, not head on. She could use a more effective approach like asking a question such as, “What do you think is happening in the organization now that might be driving this behavior on the team?”

Leadership Implications

Another critical aspect of understanding brain differences is to understand that men and women tend to embody leadership somewhat differently. While at the very highest levels of organization life, the social intelligence needed for outstanding leadership shows no difference by gender, in the general population and lower organization levels there do appear to be some differences in the ways men and women behave in leadership roles. Recognizing these differences helps us to broaden, not narrow, the pool of prospective talent. Simply put, we can summarize these differences as:

Male leaders tend to:

  • Bond in short bursts of connection
  • Downplay emotion
  • Focus on pattern thinking
  • Promote risk-taking & independence

Female leaders tend to:

  • Bond via extended conversations
  • Display more “hands-on” connection
  • Emphasize complex, multitasking activities
  • Look for methods of direct empathy
  • Be more willing to relinquish independence for “interdependence”


While biology isn’t destiny, we should not be afraid to acknowledge that there are influences on the brain that come from our gender as “males” or “females”. Admitting this does not have to lead to inequality or to inequity. Instead, we can use brain science to improve relationships and communication. Understanding these areas of difference without stereotyping can enhance the ways we manage conflict, negotiate, do sales, run meetings, and lead and coach teams. It can help us to build healthier environments where men and women can be authentically who they are and contribute their best.

About the Authors

Diana Larsen consults with leaders and teams to create work processes where innovation, inspiration, and imagination flourish. With more than fifteen years of experience working with technical professionals, Diana brings focus to the human side of organizations, teams and projects. She activates and strengthens her clients’ proficiency in shaping an environment for productive teams and thriving in times of change. Diana discovers solutions and possibilities where others find only barriers and obstacles. Diana can be reached at

Diana co-authored Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great! . Current chair of the Agile Alliance Board of Directors, she co-founded the “Agile Open Northwest” conference and the international “Retrospective Facilitators Gathering”. She is a frequent presenter both nationally and internationally on Agile team development topics.

Sharon Buckmaster, Ph.D. coaches and consults with organization leaders wanting to create workplaces that are economically, ethically, and socially sustainable. She has developed a clear perspective on organizational change that builds on individual and organization strengths to meet current challenges. Sharon sees the art of leadership as a creative endeavor shaped by context and character.

Sharon excels at working with leaders. Her long-standing interest in leadership for women led her to found the Women’s Center for Applied Leadership and her dissertation research called Standing Up and Standing Proud: Senior Executive Women Who Advocate for Gender-Equity (available at She is an associate of the Center for Gender in Organizations at Simmons College and currently teaches in the Master’s program for Applied Information Management at the University of Oregon. She can be reached at

Suggested Readings re: Brain Research

Brizendine, L. (2006). The Female Brain. New York: Broadway Books. “Sex I.D.: Find Out How Your Mind Works.”

Goleman, D. & Boyatzis, R. (2008) Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 9.

Goleman, D. ( 2006) Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. New York: Bantam Books.

Gurian, M., & Annis, B. (2008). Leadership and the Sexes: Using Gender Science to Create Success in Business. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Haidt, J. ( 2006). The Happiness Hypothesis. New York: Basic Books.

Hewitt, S., Luce, C.B., Servon, L., Sherbin, L., Shiller, P., Sosnovich, E., et al. (2008). The Athena Factor, Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology. Harvard Business Review Reports.

Neal, Rome. “Take the Male Brain Questionnaire: Actions of a Man or a Woman.”

Rock, D. & Schwartz, J. The Neuroscience of Leadership. (5/06)

Rate this Article

Adoption Stage

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or or login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Tell us what you think

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

most useless topic I have ever read by Shashidhar Mruthyunjaya

Utter waste of time

Re: most useless topic I have ever read by Mark Levison

Shashidhar - why is it useless? Do you question the thesis? Do you think its not applicable?

Interesting for Agile by Ted Young

I've definitely noticed that the more collaborative (e.g., agile) environments attract (and keep) more women. I also find that in my experience, women are more amenable to doing pair programming and do it more often.

I'd love to see more articles like this on InfoQ, i.e., that are well-written, dive a bit deeper than just a few paragraphs, and are backed by scientific references.


Re: most useless topic I have ever read by Ilja Preuß

You could at least make your reply useful by telling us what would have made the article useful for you...

Interesting by Udit Handa

The topic is rather interesting. Even before reading this article most of us knew that women in your team need to be treated differently. A team can be at its best if we distribute work according to each individuals strengths and gender does play a part in it. A good team may not have all champions but a group of individuals who together form a champion team.
Another step in understanding the machine we are...

I'll pass by Dan Tines

I would never work for an organization that foisted that crap on me. I'll pass on the indoctrination...thanks.

Re: I'll pass by Mark Levison

Dan - what part do you perceive as crap? I've read this several times and done some digging this appears to a be valid interpretation of some good neuroscience. It would be helpful if you cited a specific concern.

This is actually a good test... by Dyan Corutiu

This thread will be interesting to watch.
Out of 7 responders (myself included) 7 are male and 2 already had a negative attitude towards this topic. I wouldn't want them in my team.
It's no wonder why there are almost no women in this field. When testosterone dominates there's little room for fairness and teamwork.
Software is so expensive and volatile because of this attitude.
Good luck guys.

Re: I'll pass by Dan Tines

Mark, this is just political social engineering imposed on men. Frankly, I'd hire a lawyer and sue any company that tried to impose this re-education camp crap on me.

Re: This is actually a good test... by Dan Tines

I wouldn't want you on my team either, if you believe in this crap.

The more abrupt the remark by Amr Elssamadisy

The more I gotta question what nerve was really hit?

Male leaders tend to:

* Bond in short bursts of connection
* Downplay emotion
* Focus on pattern thinking
* Promote risk-taking & independence

Seems to pretty much describe me and many other guys I've worked with.


Female leaders tend to:

* Bond via extended conversations
* Display more “hands-on” connection
* Emphasize complex, multitasking activities
* Look for methods of direct empathy
* Be more willing to relinquish independence for “interdependence”

Seems to match much of what I've been reading about the difference between boys and girls (my daughter is just over one and I'm doing quite a bit of parent-reading).

If these are the ways that we think then I'm fine with it. If they are not, I'm also fine with it. The interesting question is - why does this tick so many men off? What's the problem guys?

Re: I'll pass by Mark Levison

I'm disappointed you attack the message but not the content. I would respect your remarks if you demonstrated faulty reasoning on the part of the authors.

Re: I'll pass by Dan Tines

Mark, I've already said that I consider this political social engineering. Frankly, I don't care if you "respect" my remarks, and I would be a little worried if someone that believes in this hogwash actually did.

Re: I'll pass by Mark Levison

Dan your comments called also be called: "political social engineering" - I was wondering if you cared to attack the substance of the article and not posture as to the reasons it was written. I expected questions, but not: ad hominem arguments "is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise"

Re: I'll pass by Dan Tines

No, Mark, apparently you haven't understood anything I've written. I didn't attack the agenda of why this article was presented on Infoq, even though there does seem to b e a disturbing trend of these types of articles on Infoq - somehow under the guise of "agile". But I attacked the entire premise of:

"Taken together, this information is becoming known as gender intelligence and is being adopted by many progressive organizations. Companies like Deloitte & Touche, IBM, and PriceWaterHouse Coopers have seen immediate financial results including increased retention of women by training their managers to use gender intelligence in the workplace" - the introductory paragraph, which sets the stage of the entire article.

You know there's trouble when you start seeing "gender intelligence" and "progressive" organizations. The irony here is that it's really an attack on woman, if you read into it.

It's all a bunch of gobbly-good crap with a political ideology undercurrent to it.

If you think that's ad-hominem Mark, then so be it, but I' not surprised you started your attacks by pulling that out of your bag of tricks.

Re: I'll pass by Mark Levison

Dan - don't blame all of InfoQ for publishing this, blame me. I saw this article as a conference presentation in a room full of men and women. For most in the room the ideas resonated and were thought provoking. After I found the article I tested it on a number of colleagues all of whom found it interesting as well. It was after that I took the time and effort to get published on InfoQ. I'm sorry that material doesn't reflect your experience I hope that means you have a unique (in a positive sense) workplace and so you've never seen these issues at play.

I referred to your comments as "ad-hominem" because they never moved beyond the opening paragraph to substance of the article. If gender intelligence bothers you (and I still wonder about it), then strike out all references to it and try reading the article again.

Re: I'll pass by Dan Tines

Mark, the net effect of "gender intelligence" is division and alienation within an organization, all under the guise of "understanding". I've seen this go on for many years in a greater societal social engineering context, and I reject it. In fact, it's quite disturbing that in reality it's advocating a regression in relationships between men and women in the workplace.

Let's focus on the message here by Declan Whelan

I am very disappointed with the negative comments expressed here. They have detracted the attention away from a well researched and informative article. I have no doubt that the authors anticipated the possibility of vitriolic reaction and I wish they were wrong on this. We should welcome all forms of diversity and gender diversity is clearly one that is both readily attainable and under utilized in many organizations. I find it hopeful that we have such a strong female voice in the agile community. Diana and Sharon should be applauded for their brave stance. You may agree or disagree but they deserve to have their ideas debated on their own merit.

Bias? by Mark Levison

I received these remarks privately from someone who didn't want to be accused of being sexist. I thought that the questions are worth considering and so I'm posting them on this person's behalf.

I agree with most of the findings presented in the article, I agree with a difference between how male and female brain works, I agree with the attempt to bridge the gap between men and women and especially using the best in each of us. That's all fine.

I wonder do the authors' have a bias? For example, they present negative actions resulting from male brain activity: anger, the inclination to appeal to force instead of negotiation based on communication, taking risks due to high level of testosterone, … . However they didn’t include negative results from women's brain activity, but only positive ones. While I agree with their findings on men's negatives, not mentioning women's negatives suggests a bias. Perhaps the authors, being females, they don't even see any negatives in their actions.

No action resulting from some brain activity is inherently good or bad, but instead excess in one direction or another makes it good or bad. For example, the risen level of testosterone has positive effects, but a level too high may end up with some negative ones. The same with estrogen: a certain amount of it in women does great, but over some level it turns into a problem. The authors need to balance their view towards men and to better understand us, humans.

We are coming from a testosterone dominated society. Let's make sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past and do not become an estrogen dominated one. We need to find the balance. Any extreme is not good.<\blockquote></\blockquote>

My experience points otherwise by maninder batth

In my experience as a consultant, i have worked for few large corporations and generally i come across women who are opposite to what was portrayed in this article. I have found them to be more aggressive, more competitive and lesser empathetic.

Re: Bias? by Francois Retief

I found the article interesting in general but agree with the comment about bias.

Having grown up in a post womans lib world I'm getting rather tired of being constantly told how men are inferior, endowed with an archaic skill set or just plain pigs. I'm just a nice guy, working hard in an IT environment, trying to treat everyone without any preconceived ideas.

A good point of the article (not that it is new) is that on average men and women do not think the same. In general it's valuable to understand that (probably) everyone else you deal with thinks and behaves different than you do. The risk is that people may start to think this is a recipe for understanding an individual. You have to adapt to that specific individual.

Re: Bias? by Cherryl Holliday

I too found the article very interesting and I agree that balance is vitally important.
In growing up (4 brothers) and as a woman in business, I have often been the target of male dominating techniques and it would be very easy to agree wholeheartedly with the article.
On the other hand, I have worked with male individuals in leadership positions who have perfected the balance.
Perhaps you could expand on the “bridge brain” point. It may help to dispel the stereotypical implication and therefore introduce some of the balance that the previous reader is eluding to.

Re: My experience points otherwise by Mark Levison

Maninder - thanks for your comments can you be more specific? Where these women high up in the corporations? Do you think that they behaved this way naturally or because that's what they had to do to succeed?

Re: Bias? by Mark Levison

Francois - thanks for your comments. I think anytime we read about the brain and neuroscience we need to remember there are no absolutes. Many years ago studies were done to locate language processing areas etc in the brain. At the time it was assumed that these were absolutes - but it turns out not be the case. Most people (not having brain damage) have language processing in this area - but its not precisely defined. I think the same is true here - think of the characteristics described here as part of a continuum. Some people will have all of these characteristics and others very few. I look at these as a lookup table - I see a person's behaviour and check if it could be mapped to the elements outline in the article. Then I use those ideas to guide my own language and actions. So I see this article as a set of tools.

Re: Bias? by Mark Levison

Cherryl - if you see my reply to Francois, you will see that I think there is a continuum here, so I think there is more balance than you realize in the article as it stands today.

Re: My experience points otherwise by Tobias Mayer

In general, my experience of women in tech workplaces is similar to Maninder's. I have always put it down to the fact that these are women competing in a "man's world" and so resort to behaviors that (they believe) put them on equal footing. It's sad, actually.

If there is gender education to be offered, and if it has to begin somewhere, I feel it needs to begin with women. Change starts from within, right? Telling men to recognize their female colleagues' "womanliness" while those same colleagues are doing their best to act like men makes little sense.

Re: My experience points otherwise by Tobias Mayer

> I have always put it down to the fact that these are women competing in a "man's world"

I should add that I could be wrong about this. Maybe the nature of the competitive business world just makes most people, gender notwithstanding, into aggressive, opinionated a**holes :)

In other words, until we change the nature of the way we do business, no amount of "gender research" or "gender education", or any other politically enlightening fix will have any long term effect.

In in still other words, as we made our bed so we lie on it.

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Email me replies to any of my messages in this thread

27 Discuss

Login to InfoQ to interact with what matters most to you.

Recover your password...


Follow your favorite topics and editors

Quick overview of most important highlights in the industry and on the site.


More signal, less noise

Build your own feed by choosing topics you want to read about and editors you want to hear from.


Stay up-to-date

Set up your notifications and don't miss out on content that matters to you