Women Lawyers: Does Expressing Anger Hold You Back?

Today I Zoomed with a young BigLaw litigator about managing her anger --- managing all strong emotions in fact---in the workplace.?Not in the courtroom, by the way--she has that figured out fine. But with her law firm colleagues and in negotiations and other professional exchanges on the phone and in person. It was a disturbing conversation for us both. She had to process some unanticipated bad news from her I've-seen-it-all coach, who almost always offers encouraging words.?And I had to repeat wise warnings made to my younger self, way way too long ago--some of which went unheeded.

In addition, this conversation forced me to relive a very painful experience from early in the covid lockdown, when --in my self-serving defense - I was deeply worried about my children's and husband's well-being in our respective epicenters. I lost my temper, suddenly and terribly, while chairing a board meeting (the first time we'd tried Zoom)--the runup to which had included a virulent torrent of combative communications from one member of the group. I've drawn on this pretty awful experience often in coaching calls--and not just to assure my clients that you're never too old and wise to make mistakes.

Back to my conversation with my young litigator. Not a fiscal quarter goes by without having several similar exchanges. The women who raise concerns about anger in the workplace are not hot-headed lawyers whose outbursts disrupt negotiations, nor are they the sorts of people who loudly and rudely dress down younger associates and staff. They are neither moody nor intractable. They are reasonable people and fair negotiators. But --here's the catch- each of these women "has a temper". Sometimes it flares to good strategic effect. Sometimes not.

So, I'm resharing here a post from last year about a similar conversation--that time with a transactional lawyer who, at a key point in negotiations, noticed raised eyebrows and rolled eyes from other zoomers when she took strong (and somewhat exasperated) issue with opposing counsel's intransigence, but benign tolerance for his far more turbulent carryings-on throughout the call.

The Science

Before offering any concrete advice, I shared the research with her. There's plenty of it and, like so much of the social science underlying race and gender bias in the workplace, it's been around for decades.

Just a few examples:

Victoria Brescoll and Eric Lewis Uhlman found that both men and women judged angry female professionals to be lower status than their equally testy male counterparts.?Importantly, evaluators attributed female expressions of emotion to internal traits ("she is an angry person," "she's out of control") but blamed emotional displays by men on "external circumstances" (you know, like “acts of god"...).

Jessica Salerno of Arizona State University?and?Liana Peter-Hagene?of University of Illinois conducted mock jury proceedings, finding that men who showed?anger in closing arguments (about a gruesome murder) were viewed as more effective, while?women who expressed anger were perceived?as less effective (and also as, wait for it… shrill, hysterical, grating and incompetent).

And University of California at Hastings law professor Joan Williams surveyed nearly 3,000 male and female lawyers, asking them whether they felt free to show anger in the workplace, when justified. 56% of white men, but only 40% of women of color (you've heard of the "angry black person" stereotype, right?) and 44 % of white women felt free to express anger.

Disturbing news, but certainly not a color-me-surprised moment for any of us in the legal profession.?Women who express anger --in fact, women who display any strong emotion-- in professional settings have always done so at their peril. In study after study professional women who express anger are evaluated as having lower status, lower competence, and deserving of lower salaries. So, of course, they view anger, and other dominant behaviors as well, as potentially costly to their careers. Because they are.

Here's a classic BigLaw example:

Meet?Don--A fifth year with some anger management issues. "But he's scrappy and plays a great game of golf."??

Male lawyers who are combative, testy or aggressive are?often described as tough or brash or, perhaps, as "street fighters". They are usually considered worthy opponents and decent (if not masterful) advocates, albeit "sharp-elbowed".?Irritating to their colleagues, these guys will nonetheless get the good work if they are smart, effective and self-confident.?

And?now?I give you?Rachel--?Top of her class.?Law review. "But oh so abrasive.?So shrill."

By contrast, a women attorney who is sharp tempered or edgy risks being seen as high-strung, emotional or, that reliable?leitmotif, bitchy.?If she switches gears to be more accommodating she could fall into the so-called "likeability vs. competence" trap, emerging "just-not-tough-enough" for the big city.?(The good news: If the client is happy, all will be forgiven.)?

And, just because it has to be said..... Haven't we all heard colleagues describe an argument between two women as a "cat fight", where the same exchange between a couple of guys would not raise an eyebrow, much less prompt a smirk??

?So how do we deal with this double standard in the workplace??

There are absolutely no easy answers to that question. The best negotiators manage their anger strategically, deploying it to the best effect and carefully monitoring the reactions of those around them.?Unfortunately, as both the research and our own experiences tell us, women can lose ground fast when they show strong emotion.

The advice I offer the women I coach varies?broadly, depending on personal style, interpersonal strengths, workplace context, and career strategy.?The first step, however, is to understand how you come across in the range of professional settings most critical to your success as a lawyer and your advancement at work. Then determine whether modulating your anger or other strong emotions would make a difference of sufficient appeal to justify the effort or the sacrifice in authenticity.

In those situations in which the answer is “yes, I’ve got to tone down my emotions (whether or not they're justified)”, consider deploying a little “gender judo”, a term coined by Joan Williams in her book What Works for Women in Work. When the situation calls for strong words and assertive body language, take the sting out with an equal measure of empathy, humor, or both.

Some women find that simply being aware of the stereotype is enough to help them moderate their emotions in professional settings. Those who?conclude that they could afford some polishing have at their disposal a host of helpful books, blogs, communications coaches and cognitive therapists.?

Deborah Rhode, director of the Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford Law School acknowledges that to be most successful in many professional settings women need to be seen as "likeable". My favorite of her suggestions is to be “relentlessly pleasant” in encounters with infuriating people (not to be confused with the “bless her heart” playbook), even as you stick to your guns. This requires immense patience, but is awfully satisfying. (Or so I hear. Not my strong suit, I've got to confess.)

The best business lawyers I knew during my career - male and female - always steered clear of testy exchanges. I did my best to emulate them—with varying degrees of success--- developing a negotiating approach tied to my client's business objectives and practical challenges and to general notions of fair play. No matter how fraught the situation, I knew I would always be most effective if I could modulate my emotions, seize the moral high ground, and resolutely retain it until all was resolved. Way more fun than getting mad....but also way easier said than done!