|
|
A Review of Dr. Deborah Tannen Talking from 9 to 5
William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1994 by Michelle Sagucio May 3, 2003 |
|
Introduction
As a
student in Psychology 459 (Advanced Topics in Social Psychology) this semester,
I have been learning about how men and women talk and how this regulates
behavior in the workplace. We have been using Dr. Deborah Tannen’s Talking
from 9 to 5 and web articles relating to the topic to give weekly oral
presentations and participate in such discussions in class. This book review is
an overview of the contents of the book and an analysis of its strengths and
weaknesses based on my opinion.
Note: The
full title of the text I bought was Talking from 9 to 5: How Women’s
and Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit
and What Gets Done At Work. This differs from the title of the book of
other students, which was Talking from 9 to 5:
Women and Men in the Workplace: Language, Sex, and Power. Nonetheless,
everything in the book was the same; only the cover differed.
1.
The Book’s Overall Content
Dr. Deborah
Tannen has been trying to understand relationships by researching the framework
of conversational style. She quotes,
“People have different conversational
styles, influenced by the part of the country they grew up in, their ethnic
backgrounds and those of their parents, their age, class, and gender. But
conversational style is invisible. Unaware that these and other aspects of our
backgrounds influence our ways of talking, we think we are simply saying what
we mean. Because we don’t realize that others’ styles are
different, we are often frustrated in conversations. Rather than seeing the
culprit as differing styles, we attribute troubles to others’ intentions
(she doesn’t like me), abilities (he’s stupid), or character
(she’s rude, he’s inconsiderate), our own failure (what’s
wrong with me?), or the failure of a relationship (we just can’t
communicate)”
(pp. 11-12).
Hence, her
book, Talking from 9 to 5, is all about men and women’s
conversational styles and other factors that affect the interpretation of their
conversations. The major topics covered in the book, though not in any
particular order, include:
Topic #1: Conversational rituals
There are numerous conversational rituals. Some of them
include apologizing, saying thank you, giving praise, and engaging in
“troubles talk” or “rapport talk.”
apologizing (Chapter
2, pp. 44-52)
More women than men apologize. However, their apologies may
be uncalled for. It can serve as an “automatic conversational
smoother” (p. 45). In the example of Dr. Tannen asking for a
columnist’s number because she misplaced it, the columnist said, “Oh, I’m sorry.” Here, the columnist did not have to
apologize because she did not have any fault, but said so to assure Dr. Tannen
that she was not rushing her off the phone or wanted to deny her of her phone
number.
“Sometimes a tone of self-deprecation is heard as an
apology even without the word ‘sorry’ being spoken” (p. 45).
In an example where Vicki said, “…that
must have been me just being unclear,” even if she did not say the word
“sorry,” her statement would have been considered an apology.
However, saying “I’m sorry” does not
necessarily mean that it is an apology. As Dr. Tannen put it, “it is a
ritual way of restoring balance to a conversation.” When at a funeral,
people say “I’m sorry” not to take blame over what happened,
but to show that they understand and care for the feelings of the other person.
When saying “I’m sorry” to apologize, it
is a two step ritual. One person apologizes and takes half of the blame while
the other person takes the other half. In instances where this two-step ritual
is not familiar, one person can walk away feeling hurt, seemingly taking a one-down
position. As Dr. Tannen states in the example, “If
I say ‘I’m sorry’ and you say ‘I accept your
apology,’ then my attempt to achieve balance has misfired, and I think
you have put me in a one-down position, though you probably think I put myself
there….it’s a mutual face-saving device” (p. 46).
It is also important to point out that when someone
apologizes in a tone that does not sound apologetic, it can cause more tension
or dissatisfaction in a relationship. It will not necessarily smooth out the
tension.
saying thank
you (Chapter 2, pp. 54-57)
Ritual thanking is commonly done by
women.
As in apologizing, the ritual of thanking is also a two-step
process. “…so a ritual thanks is expected
to trigger an in-kind response. When that response doesn’t come, the
result can be annoyance, since the thanker is left in a one-down
position” (p. 56)
Sometimes, people say “thanks” or “thank
you” as a way to make an exit. Here is an example of someone saying
“thanks” to make an exit (p. 55):
Evelyn:
You don’t need me then?
John:
Uh,
/?/.
Evelyn:
Okay.
John:
It’s
just—
Evelyn:
[She laughs.] Should I stay or should I leave?
John: I
think not. I think—I’ll get it done today because it’s /?/.
Evelyn:
Okay. Thanks. [She leaves.]
Note: /?/ means that Dr. Tannen could not accurately
transcribe what was said.
giving
praise (Chapter 2, pp. 66-68)
Men and women have different views about giving praise. Many
women believe that when their work is not being praised or nothing is being
said at all by their bosses, their work is not good enough. They believe their
thinking is supported by the adage “If you can’t say anything nice,
don’t say anything at all.” Women need feedback on the work they
are doing. Men believe that if their boss says nothing, then they are doing an
okay job. They expect their bosses to talk to them only when they need to make
corrections or improve something. Hence, bosses need to strike a balance
between men and women; they should be aware of what women and men expect
regarding feedback.
engaging in
“troubles talk” or “rapport talk” (Chapter 2 pp.
71-72)
Many women engage in “troubles talk” to build
rapport. When one talks about a problem, another is supposed to share a similar
complaint, thereby placing them on equal footing. Men, on the other hand, take
the “troubles talk” as literal complaints that need solutions.
Topic #2: Being “marked”
(Chapter 4, pp. 107-131)
Women are “marked” in many ways. Unlike men who
do not have much variety in business suits and shoes to choose from, women have
more complicated decisions to make. They must decide on their hairstyles, the
amount of make-up to wear, the size of the heel of their shoes, the length of
their skirts, whether or not to accessorize with jewelry or scarves, etc. With
every decision that they make, they face the risk of having their character
judged. A women who does not know how to use and wear make-up might be judged
incompetent; if she cannot put make-up on, what more her job? Or, look, her
skirt is too short. She is probably looking for a date. Her outfit is too
bright. She is calling (negative) attention to herself. Why can’t she
blend with everyone else?
Their titles also portray something about them even when
they do not say anything at all. As described in the book, Ms.= Liberal, Miss =
Youthful, Mrs. = Married.
Women’s gender alone marks them. At a business meeting
dominated by men, the small number of women will always be noticeable. In fact,
it may not even be the number of women at all. It could be just their mere
presence that is noticeable. At offices, women are seen as secretaries, even if
they may be the big bosses themselves or professors. Many people look onto
women for information and help.
Topic #3: Women and Power (Chapter 6,
pp. 160-203)
Women, because of their gender, are seen as less competent.
In a review of studies, Veronica Nieva and Barbara Gutek consistently found
that “well-qualified people in managerial
roles were evaluated more highly if they were identified as males”
(p. 193).
Women in authority have a seemingly difficult time emphasizing the power of their position. They like to downplay their authority to be more on an equal footing with subordinates. Women like to develop this kind of rapport between themselves. If a female boss is more “aggressive,” just directly giving orders, other females will find her “bossy.” They will not see her as approachable and this could make relations uncomfortable in the workplace. They are also more often addressed by their first names as compared to males.
Women especially like this downplay of authority, but men do
not. In this society, where the images of men are derived from the military and
sports, men want to seem more dominant. They want to give orders and are more
task-oriented, dismissing personal feelings in the workplace.
In other words, women are in a double bind. They can either
be liked or be respected as authority figures; this is what Dr. Tannen calls
the “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t
double bind.”
Topic #4: Adaptation/Compromise (Chapter
3, pp. 119-131, Chapter 6, p. 203)
Trying to adapt and compromise behavior and conversational
styles in the workplace follow the
“damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t
double bind.” It
was found that females were more likely to adapt their styles to those of males
when in groups. They become more assertive, raise their voices, and interrupt
more often. However, when women try to act like men, thinking that it will
assure them of being heard and their contributions acknowledged, they are
actually confronted with negative reactions, from both men and other women.
Dr. Tannen states, “…if
you try to adopt a style that does not come naturally to you, you leave behind
your intuitions and may well behave in ways inappropriate in any style or
betray the discomfort you actually feel (p. 131). Another reason it would be a mistake for women to try
to behave like men is that businesses need to communicate with clients of
different sorts, including more and more women (p. 126). Although I describe patterns of women’s and
men’s typical (not universal) styles, and show that styles expected of
women can work against them in work settings, I would not advise women to adopt
men’s styles to succeed—although in some cases, in some ways, it
might work” (p. 125).
Topic #5: Indeterminancy of language (Chapter 7, pp. 204-207, Chapter
8, pp. 240-241)
The indeterminancy of language is also related to polysemy (having
more than one meaning). Whatever people say can have more meanings than one and
therefore can be interpreted in a number of ways. Conversational-style
differences and the problem of language having multiple meanings can cause
confusion and misunderstanding in the workplace. “And
anything that happens between two people is the result of both their actions.
Sociolinguists talk about this by saying that all interaction is ‘a joint
production.’ The double meaning of status and connections makes very utterance
potentially ambiguous and even polysemous” (p. 240).
This indeterminancy of language is very much related to
sexual harassment (Chapter 8, pp. 242-275). Just as sayings can be
misinterpreted, so can actions. Men and women have different views regarding
sexual harassment. Men see sexual harassment as being aggressive in nature,
involving some kind of physical contact. Women, on the other hand, do not see
physical contact to be the only integral part of
sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment can be experienced at any level of power. Being in a high position does not serve as protection from it. Dr. Tannen describes the experiences of two women in high positions: a New York state senator had to climb over a male senator to get to her seat; congresswoman Jill Long was complimented by a male colleague on her appearance and was told that he was going to chase her around.
The boundaries of sexual harassment and having romantic relationships in the workplace have been complicated by changing times. In the past, because women were not working alongside men in their workplaces, they usually met outside of the context of the workplace. Nowadays, with more women entering the workplace, there are more chances for men and women to meet there. This can pose controversial issues in the workplace such as favoritism. Attraction can confuse or enhance office interactions.
Topic #6: Being indirect (Chapter 3, pp.
78-106)
Many people view indirectness as a sign of insecurity when
oftentimes, it is not. “Indirectness is a
fundamental element in human communication. It is also one of the elements that
varies the most from one culture to another, and one that can cause confusion
and misunderstandings when speakers have different habits with regard to using
it” (p. 79).
Being indirect is just a certain conversational style. On
pages 80-81 is a conversation between a manager and a subordinate. In her
attempts to have him include the conversion rate in the report, she had been
indirect. In this situation, being indirect the first time could have saved her
the frustration from the writer not understanding what she really meant and
wanted.
Men can also be indirect, but they only do so when it deals
with their problems, errors, emotions other than anger, and expressions of weakness.
Indirectness can be helpful in some situations. It
especially works well among men and women who are familiar with it and prefer
it. Lakoff identified two benefits that come from indirectness: defensiveness
and rapport. Indirectness can create defensiveness, “the
preference not to go on record with an idea in order to be able to disclaim,
rescind, or modify it if it does not meet with a positive response”
(p. 105). Rapport is achieved when a person, who did not demand something,
finds out that another person wanted the same thing he/she wanted.
In other situations, indirectness can be dangerous. Dr.
Tannen pointed out examples of captains not picking up on the indirectness of
co-pilots. This led to fatal outcomes. Especially in situations where safety is
a concern, people should familiarize themselves with others’ use of indirectness.
These 6
topics did not necessarily progress from one chapter to the next. In actuality,
most of the chapters overlapped in material. Nonetheless, the chapters covered important
topics in the area of conversational styles that differ among the genders.
I can see
and understand why there is a lot of overlap in material among chapters.
Afterall, everything is related; the topics draw upon each other for support and
elaboration. I was not familiar with most of the topics and was glad that I did
get an overview of them while reading the book. I was especially enlightened by
so-called “conversational rituals” because I could relate to a
number of them, particularly saying thank you and asking for ideas and opinions
from others before making a decision.
This book
could be of interest to some people, not just anyone. People in the workplace,
bosses and subordinates, should read this book if they want to be more aware of
different conversational rituals, especially among men and women. The book may
not necessarily be a good source for directly-stated solutions, but it does a
fairly good job in delineating the various issues regarding men’s and
women’s verbal behavior in the workplace. This will help people in the
workplace become more aware of each other’s conversational styles and
will help them to work more efficiently together. When they become familiar
with and understand people’s different styles, they can accommodate their
attitudes and/or adapt their styles to compliment those of co-workers.
It could
also serve as an eye opener for women who feel that they should have been
promoted a long time ago and/or feel that their contributions never receive the
acknowledgment and praise they deserve. These women should have their bosses
read the book also, especially if they are males. Bosses should read the book
to learn about how women act and talk in the workplace. That way, when they are
looking for people to promote, women will have a fair opportunity to be
considered. Their seemingly “lack of confidence” should not be
compared to the more “aggressive” attitude of men. For that matter,
their so-called “lack of confidence” may not be a lack of
confidence at all, but a lack of “aggressiveness.”
This is not to say that more males should read the book. Both sexes should. Although the book focuses on the dynamics within the workplace, the issues discussed can nonetheless be applied to personal and public relationships outside of the workplace. The examples given can help people communicate better with their significant others. I think this is particularly true for the issue regarding males not “showing” that they are listening. Females must take into consideration that perhaps the males are listening, but are just not “showing” it. They may look elsewhere or switch topics, but if females would rather have them look at them, by all means, they should tell the males what they want. As for males, they should understand that although many girls like to talk at length about the same topic more than once, they should listen nonetheless.
Dr. Tannen
considers Talking from 9 to 5 to be the third book in a series, but it
could be an entity onto itself.
2. The
Book’s Importance
One of the problems the book addressed was sexual harassment. To this issue, Dr. Tannen suggests that “women and men…appreciate the deep but differing fears the phenomenon referred to as ‘sexual harassment’ engenders in the other” (p. 273).
In the “Getting Heard” section (p. 304) of
Chapter 9: Who Get’s Heard?, Dr. Tannen proposes that quiet people should
become more aggressive in putting their ideas out on the table. This is her
solution to the question “What can be done
to ensure that people with varying conversational styles, including both women
and men, are heard at meetings, and that companies take advantage of and
recognize the contributions of all their employees?”
For the problem regarding indirectness at work,
sociolinguist Kunihiko Harada “believes
that the secret of successful communication lies not in teaching subordinates
to be more direct, but in teaching higher-ups to be more sensitive to indirect
meaning” (p. 95).
Dr. Tannen makes it clear that it is not a matter of talking the wrong or right way. Problems arise when there are differences in conversational styles and the people involved are not aware of them. The main solution she repeatedly pointed out was to be aware and understand the different conversational styles between men and women.
Sexual harassment is a big issue nowadays. This book uses a
whole chapter to deal with it (Chapter 8: What’s Sex Got To Do With It?).
It was important to point it out, especially since sayings and actions can have
multiple meanings, thereby blurring the boundaries of sexual harassment. It is
also important for both sexes to realize the underlying fears that they both have
about each other. “Men should try to
understand women’s abiding fear of male violence and their reluctance to
offend by stating that something makes them uncomfortable...But women, for
their part, should try to understand men’s fear of being falsely accused,
of having a woman they felt protective toward turn on them and destroy
them” (p. 273).
The Glass Ceiling is also another big issue. The glass
ceiling is an invisible barrier that prevents women from achieving top
positions in the workplace. This has much to do with people undermining women
based on their conversational styles and attitudes. Although many women do not
boast or publicly state that they want to be promoted, bosses should take into
consideration the work that the women have put forth and their potential to do
more. When women ask others for their opinions before making decisions, it does
not mean that they are less competent. When women apologize, it does not
necessarily mean that they are to be blamed for something. There are many differences
in the workplace behavior displayed by men and women. If more people are aware
of them, then more women will have a fighting chance to break through the glass
ceiling.
Within psychology, the material covered in the book has
relevance. Unfortunately, because Dr. Tannen is a sociolinguist, she did not
present the material as a psychologist would. As a sociolinguist, she has
gathered empirical data and compared her overt observations to make
generalizations. As a psychology student, I noticed that she does not explain
why things are the way they are, why females and males have certain styles,
etc. She does not explain the motivation behind certain behaviors.
However, although she lacks in these areas, having put the
information out there makes a difference. When people are aware of this
information, they can come up with suggestions on their own. The information
can also motivate psychologists to find out the “why’s” and
“how’s” of certain behaviors.
3. The
Book’s Structure
Contents
The page pictured below is an exact replication of the Table
of Contents as presented in Talking from 9 to 5.
Diagram 1. Table of Contents, as
seen in book.
The book did not have any exercises or tests. There were no
tables and diagrams.
However, there was a Preface and A Note on Notes and
Transcription at the
beginning of the book, which appeared before Chapter 1.
There was also an Afterword, where she makes final comments
regarding the issues in the book. The Afterword should be read because it could
answer some of the questions that readers have regarding generalizations. Dr.
Tannen states,
“The results of a scientific study
must be ‘generalizable,’ or they are considered useless. If you
can’t ‘generalize’ about your findings, you can’t talk
about them at all. In other words,
generalizing, that great bugbear of conventional wisdom, is actually the goal
of scientific research—to find a pattern in a seemingly unrelated mass of
evidence, to move beyond the description of a single instance and see its
relationship to other instances” (p. 311).
The Notes section, which directly follows the Afterword, contains notes that elaborate on
particular quotes in each chapter. For each chapter, Dr. Tannen lists the page
number where the quote can be found and then states the particular quote in
italics within quotation marks. The quotes are listed according to when they
appeared in the chapter; the earlier ones stated first. These notes do not
include bibliographical information, which she does state at the beginning of
the Notes
section.
The bibliography is found after the Notes section, in a section called References. The last section in the book is
the Index.
I do agree more or less on the titles she has given for each
chapter. However, in Chapter 8: What’s Sex Got to Do With It?, I disagree
with the title given to the first section—“Saying One Thing and
Being Heard As Saying Another” (p. 243). The title does not correlate
with the examples given. The examples deal more with actions rather than
conversation. The two situations described, involving the same female, did not
include much dialogue. We read to find out that she liked the boss that gave
her flowers at the end of the semester as a friendly gesture and disliked the
boss that kissed all the secretaries in the morning. Instead of the title being
“Saying One Thing and Being Heard As Saying Another,” it should be
“Doing One Thing and Being Seen as Doing Another.”
Layout and Print
The layout is straightforward. The headings for each chapter
are enclosed in boxes, making it easier to differentiate them from the regular
text. The headings are also capitalized.
Diagram 2. Heading on a sample
page.
However, I think the layout of the page numbers and text in
the Notes
section should be changed. Although she indents the page numbers to somehow
differentiate them from each other, it is not very effective. She should bold
them or put the page numbers and notes in two different columns; page numbers
on the left and notes on the right. Thus, an extra blank line does not have to
appear between each piece of notes. I know that adding extra blank lines
between notes would mean more pages, which would entail more money to pay for
them. In fact, if she had just included footnotes, she would not have needed a Notes section.
The print used throughout most of the book is just the right
size. Although the text in the Index section is smaller than the usual size used throughout the
book, it is still readable. Perhaps, it could be more comprehensive. Although
she used the term “indeterminancy of language” several times in the
book, the term “indeterminancy” did not appear in the Index.
Diagram 3. Sample index page from
book.
4.
Critique of the Book
Truthfully, Talking from 9 to 5 is not the type of
book I would have pulled off the shelf from Borders to buy and take home to
read. However, I did enjoy reading the book and I cannot say that I ever regret
doing so. In fact, I learned so much more from it than I expected. Just being
aware of different conversational styles has made me appreciate and understand
a little more about the dynamics that happen in the workplace.
Actually, the things I learned do not only apply in the work
setting. For the most part, I enjoyed reading the book because I could apply
the things I learned to my personal life. For example, I learned that males like
to tell females the solutions to their problems even when females only need
someone to talk to. I have noticed this with my boyfriend and I have told him
that I read about it in the book. Ever since I told him that I would ask for a
solution to a problem when I wanted one, he has never interrupted me to tell me
what I should do. When I ask him for suggestions on what I should do, only then
does he tell me what he thinks. Sometimes, I already know what I will do but
will ask him for his opinion anyway because I know that he probably has a
suggestion that he is anxious to share.
Also, early on in the book, Dr. Tannen describes a scenario
in which a female boss critiques a report a male subordinate has written. To
make her criticisms seem less severe, she delivers praise first. However, he
took the praise to mean that his report did not need much improvement. The
boss’ indirectness in the first place did not get her the results she
wanted. This situation is analogous to what would happen to me and my boyfriend
when I correct his reports. Fortunately, I have learned to tell him directly
what I think is wrong or needs changing. This has worked out well because if I
tell him that it is okay, he will never make very many changes. Telling him
directly saves us frustration and polishes his reports. I would have him
correct my reports, but I am more meticulous than he is and so it would not
work out the same way.
However, although it has been pointed out that the ways of
women are not effective in a male-dominated society, I do not know if I will
ever (drastically) change my conversational style. For example, Dr. Tannen
pointed out that when women ask others for their opinions before making a
decision, people see them as incompetent and indecisive. I do not have this
problem with the people I work with now, but if I ever do in the future, I
think they should understand conversational styles first (perhaps, read this
book) instead of having me change the way I do things. I like to know what
others think before making a decision but if I was forced to not ask anyone, I
am sure that I could reach a decision on my own anyhow. Yes, society has a
problem with realizing and understanding that sometimes women know better ways
of communicating and dealing with tasks more effectively.
I would never want to become more boastful to show my boss
that I deserve a promotion or more acknowledgment. I say, “let actions
speak louder than words.” If my boss cannot see to this, then perhaps I
am in a bad working environment.
I have picked out two passages to quote because I found them
worthwhile. I think the following quote gives a nice summation of an important
topic in the book—the indeterminancy of language.
“Intentions and effects are not
identical. When people have differing conversational styles, the effect of what
they say may be very different from their intention. And anything that happens
between two people is the result of both their actions. Sociolinguists talk
about this by saying that all interaction is ‘a joint production.’
The double meaning of status and connection makes every utterance potentially
ambiguous and even polysemous (meaning many things at once).” (p. 240)
Another
quote that I thought was worthwhile was:
“Before we give anyone advice or training
in how to talk in different ways, we must realize that people perceive their
ways of talking to be who they are. Talk is one of the main ways people show
the world their character and their worth. You may seek to change yourself,
though this is risky, since your antennae are not attuned to the new style you
are trying to use. Some people (with more eagerness, I suspect) will try to get
others to change. But the most important key is understanding the parameters of
conversational style, which provides the tools to become more flexible not only
in your own way of speaking but, equally important, in interpreting how others
mean what they say, and in evaluating others’ abilities. Understanding
what goes on when people talk to each other is the best way to improve
communication—and get more work done—in the workplace as in all
aspects of our lives” (pp. 308-309).
In essence, Dr. Tannen does point out that the key to
improving communication is understanding, understanding, understanding.
The book was an easy read and did present interesting
material. However, I do have some negative critiques. Below is a list of the
book’s weaknesses. I have included an explanation of the weaknesses and
justification to support my opinion, except for the first one.
Being a
sociolinguist, she can transcribe the “what” of conversations well,
but does not provide the “why.”
In
relation to the weakness described above, Dr. Tannen also failed to provide
solutions and offer advice to help mediate conversations between men and women.
When she does, they are often inconsistent or not concrete enough to be
helpful.
“[Women] try to be appropriately
modest by denigrating their own accomplishments and possessions. But while it
may work well for them by making them more likable, this ritual can work
against them by interfering with a demeanor that exudes authority” (p. 191). Does this mean that
people, particularly women, cannot be both liked and authoritative at the same
time?
However, in the Afterword section, she states, “But quick tips cannot be given to fix the
resulting misunderstandings, because interaction is too complicated for that,
with all the subtleties of context, personality, and style that are necessarily
at play wherever human beings work together. Yet experience has shown that
given the tool of understanding, individuals are able to devise ways of
addressing and often solving their problems” (p. 314). This
implies that she is hesitant to provide any advice because there are too many
factors involved, but I do agree with her about awareness playing an important
role in understanding and regulating conversation.
In the section “What’s a Woman to Do?” in
Chapter 6 (p. 202), Dr. Tannen states, “If
a woman talks in ways expected of women, she is more likely to be liked than
respected. If she talks in ways expected of men, she is more likely to be
respected than liked.” It seems as if women can go either way,
but never win. Also, does not the word “liking” entail
“respect”? At dictionary.com, the
words “liking” and “respect” are synonyms.
On page 289, in the section “It’s Hard For Girls
to Influence Boys,” Dr. Tannen said that Margaret Mead “chose the issues on which she would speak up,
so as not to come across as dominant. Such a choice may be a wise one for
everyone, women as well as men. On the other hand, it may also be wise to
decide that being seen as aggressive is a price worth paying for being listened
to.” This shows that there are trade-offs. It is difficult to
pinpoint a solution that will appease everyone.
Dr.
Tannen’s discussions regarding situations comparing men and women are
incomplete; they do not always include female and male counterparts.
On page 194, she describes a simple experiment done by
Speech-communication professor Donald Rubin. He had students listen to a
tape-recorded lecture given by an American-born female from Ohio. As they
listened to the lecture, the picture of the supposed lecturer (a Caucasian or
Chinese woman) appeared on the screen. He found that the students who thought
they were listening to a Chinese lecturer scored lower on the comprehension
test than the students who thought they were listening to a Caucasian woman.
Their lower scores were about the same as the scores of a third group of
students who heard a lecture by a real Chinese teaching assistant, one who had
a heavy accent. Dr. Tannen should have included an example on male teaching
assistants also.
Many of
her generalizations are biased.
“There are many women who would do
exceptionally well if they were given a role of authority but who never get the
chance because they do not act as if they want or deserve it before others
grant them the position” (p. 192, para. 2). “Don’t act as if they want
or deserve it” – what kind of statement is this? How should women
act then? I think women do want to be promoted and acknowledged, but to state
that they do not want to is quite senseless. Dr. Tannen should know better than
to generalize so. Many women may not be as aggressive as men to do tasks that
will call on attention for promotion or acknowledgment and thus,
placing/favoring the attitude of men over women is unjust.
She goes on to say, “In
many organizations, those making decisions about promotions into leadership
positions look for leaderlike behavior as well as evidence of a desire to be
promoted, but many people (including many women) do not exhibit leaderlike
behavior…” (pp. 192-193). Dr. Tannen does not aptly or
even touch on the definition of leaderlike behavior. What is leaderlike? Does
“evidence of a desire to be promoted” include verbally stating it?
If so, of course men would show more evidence of that desire because they
usually talk up more than women. And if my generalization seems valid, that
means Dr. Tannen is supposing that women should be more like men.
She should try to stay away from using the pronouns
“he” and “she.” As Dr. James has stated in class, it is
better to stay away from assigning genders to things by just using the word
“they” instead. Interchanging the pronouns “he” and
“she” every paragraph or section can be irritating. It provides
more chance of causing offense to a reader. For example, I paid more attention to
and felt a little offended at the following sentence because of the pronoun
“she”: “If you have a friend
who repeatedly picks up the check when you dine together, is she being generous
and sharing her wealth, or is she trying to flaunt her money and remind you
that she has more of it than you” (p. 206).
“…made clear that feeling you
are in your rightful place in a hierarchy can feel as safe and close in your
family—a quintessentially hierarchical institution” (p. 215). As Dr. James suggested in
class, the terms “safe” and “close” depend on relations
within the family. Afterall, a person’s family may not entail safety and
closeness.
She does
not (properly and effectively) cite resources with footnotes.
Not citing resources makes things troublesome for readers
who are critical of the information she presents. For example, on the very
bottom of page 186 to the top of page 187, she states, “But
others’ research, as well as my own observation, indicates that there are
often patterns to women’s and men’s philosophies of management,
just as there are systematic differences in how others react to the same ways
of talking when heard from women or men.” Wondering whose
research she could be pertaining to, I looked at the Notes section in hopes of
finding more information. Unfortunately, she makes no reference to any source,
not even one (p. 330).
To this deficiency, Dr. Tannen apologizes in A Note on
Notes and Transcription. Her explanation is as follows: “A
majority of readers find little numbers distracting; many feel compelled to
interrupt their reading and search for the note, then feel tricked when the
note offers only bibliographical information about which they care
little.”
There was
a lack of tables, diagrams, and interactive features such as tests or
checklists.
She could have had tables showing results from observations.
Of the x number of people she interviewed or observed, y number of women did
this while z number of men did this. Statistics organized in a table could be
more visually appealing than paragraphs of describing each piece of statistic.
Dr. Tannen could also have made up some kind of test in
which readers could make generalizations about the conversational styles
between men and women. For example, who is more likely to interrupt discussions
at a meeting – men or women? She can then present her findings at the end
of the test. Readers can compare their beliefs to those of Dr. Tannen’s
findings.
Although the book had a number of deficiencies, it did have
one major strength.
Dr.
Tannen presents and compares empirical/overt observations.
As a scholar in sociolinguistics, she tried to cover topics
that pertained to how men and women conversed with each other. By recording
conversations, whether it was her or an accomplice, she had them transcribed
and was able to find a certain pattern in particular situations to generalize
findings.
After analyzing its content, I would rate Talking from 9
to 5 three stars out of five. 
I did not
find it very helpful in providing solutions in bettering conversational styles
for men and women. The book only provided observations and from the examples
and generalizations given, the reader seems to still bear the weight of trying
to find out what to do, in terms of conversational styles, and how to regulate
behavior in the workplace. Even when she did offer solutions, she did not
explain how people could achieve those results. Be more assertive, she says.
Well, how can people become more assertive? Just wake up one morning and have the
urge to talk up more often? Have women adopt the so-called
“aggressive” attitude of men?
However, although there were no clear-cut solutions, she did
a pretty good job in citing examples that showed differences in men and
women’s conversational styles. Just being aware of these differences can
help people adapt to their workplace by changing their styles. Women can learn
to be more aggressive to ascertain that their contributions are recognized. Men
can start boasting less often as to create more rapport with fellow workers, as
opposed to putting others in a one-down position by flaunting their
achievements.
“Required reading…sharp and
insightful…lively and straightforward…a novel and sometimes startling
analysis of workplace dynamics.” – The New York Times Book Review
“This wise and informative
book…[is] filled with gracefully analyzed examples of job-related
conversations, every page delivers a shock of recognition.” -- Publishers Weekly
“Tannen concludes that women should
go with their own approach, but they should also try to be assertive and worry
less about being liked than about being competent. Yet in the next breath, she
acknowledges that women who act assertive may bring unpleasant consequences on
themselves. In the end, she reaches for platitudes, blithely recommending that
workers adopt a mix of styles and that managers learn to recognize and
appreciate quality in diverse forms. … Women facing hostile work
environment and seeking substantive improvements in their situation are likely
to find Tannen’s recourse to ‘sylistic differences’
ultimately offers little help.” -- Kirkus
Reviews
Reviews From Other
Customers
In reviewing the book at Amazon.com, customers rated it using a 5-star rating, where 1 star equates a poor review and 5 stars, a great review.
“First, it would be nice to explain, that this book
is targeted to (a) women, (b), women suffering from the lack fo (sp) self-confidence, (c) women suffering from the lack of
self-confidence and comfortable with blaming men for sexism on a working place.
It’s just too much time spent on sexes relations instead of real
communication problems. Of course, difference of male and female styles of
communication is a problem, you have to keep in mind, but this is not the ONLY
problem. Reading the review on a book I expected advice on improving my
communication skills, not to hear a bunch of regular feministic stream of accusations
of the business world. It’s just misleading, useless and very unpleasant.
So if you want feminist propaganda, this book is for you, if you really want to
improve your skills, go somewhere else.” -- reader from Seattle, WA, August 8, 2000
“Tannen’s examples are dated and her
observations of women stereotypical. She frequently cites studies, but does not
reference the situation or the dates of research.” -- reader from Chicago, IL, May 7,
2000
“…Tannen illustrates and defines patterns and
gives us enough information to work it out for ourselves.” -- reader from Indianapolis, IN,
July 19, 1999
“This book is not about solutions any more than a
book comparing the French and Spanish cultures is about solutions. It is about
understanding linguistic/cultural differences. Those who understand will
appreciate the ‘other’s’ language. Those who do not
understand will keep on misunderstanding, wondering what is wrong and looking
for a book that will tell them how to fix it. I regularly recommend this book
to every business woman in one of my seminars. And, I recommend that they also
buy copies for (a) their boss and (b) all of their
subordinates…particularly if they are men.” -- reader from Dallas, TX, August
16, 1999
Many of the editorial and customer reviews found on
Amazon.com appeared in other sites. Hence, the following link includes other
reviews.
http://hallnonfiction.com/womens_studies/239.shtml
5. Additional Observations
I have listed questions and additional comments not mentioned earlier in this book review in this section. I have included the page number and quote for ease of locating it within the book.
p. 189, under “Don’t Hate
Me, I’m Not Perfect” section
“Barbara Matusow (her real name), a writer at Washingtonian Magazine, showed me pages from a journal she had kept in the early 1970’s.”
I do not understand why she had to indicate “her real
name” in parenthesis after the name of the writer.
p. 194, under “Judging a Book By
Its Cover” section
“…it is simply the image of
women as women that affords them low status, not anything they have done as individuals.
Offensive as the realization may seem, expectations about us, based on
preconceptions, can affect and even determine how we are heard—and if we
are heard at all.”
Throughout the book, Dr. Tannen has been referring to women from a third-person perspective. In the quote above, she uses the words “us” and “we,” as if including herself with the women she is describing. I suppose this is effective in being more personal with the reader, but she does not do it often enough in the book to make the intent meaningful.
p. 257, under “It’s About
Power—At All Levels” section
“It is commonly said that sexual harassment
is not about sex, but about power. I believe this is true, but the fact that it
involves sex is not irrelevant.”
Instead of having used the term “not
irrelevant,” why not just “relevant”?
p. 273, under “You Just
Don’t Understand” section
“…Men are as offended by the image of man-as-predatory beast as women are by the image of woman-as-witch: a temptress and deceiver who entices only to destroy.”
Why did she only elaborate on “woman-as-witch,”
adding that it means “a temptress and deceiver who entices only to
destroy”? Having done that, she should have also elaborated on the male
image. Ideally, though, she should not have elaborated on the female image
altogether because the chapter already included a section on “woman as
witch.”
Back to Top II Back to my
Home Page II E-mail
me
G18 Class
Home Page II Dr. Leon James'
Home Page II Other
Interesting Links
Syllabus II Forum
Discussion II Oral
Presentation Schedule II 459 Due
Dates
University
of Hawaii at Manoa
II College of Social Sciences
II UH
Dept. of Psychology